Partly allowed

Mujeeb Rahman v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Aug 2018CRL.A/987/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal by sureties regarding a bond forfeiture order under Section 446 Cr.P.C. for the accused's non-appearance. The court confirmed the proceedings but remitted the penalty to Rs. 5,000 per surety from the full bond amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order confirmed subject to modification that penalty payable by appellants be reduced to Rs. 5,000 each, with the balance remitted.

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

CRL.A.No. 987 of 2018

¶6

IN SC 134/2017 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI

¶7

DATED 30-06-2018

¶8

CRIME NO. 141 /2014 OF Vengara Police Station , Malappuram

¶9

APPELLANTS/SURETIES:

¶10

1 MUJEEB RAHMAN, S/O. SOOPI, CHEERANGAL HOUSE, PARAPPOOR, TIRUR, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 HAMZA, S/O. MUHAMMED, MELEKKATH HOUSE, PARAPPOOR (P.O.), PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. R. RANJITH MANJERI

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

- - - - Crl.A. No. 987 of 2018

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2018

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The appellants herein are the sureties of the accused in S.C. No. 134 of 2017 of the Court of Session, Manjeri. When the accused failed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Manjeri as the trial Judge, the learned trial Judge initiated proceedings against the sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C., and registered M.C. No. 34 of 2017. As sureties, the appellants had executed bond for Rs.50,000/- each before the court. On a finding regarding forfeiture of bond, the learned trial Judge issued show cause notice to the sureties to show cause against imposition of the bond amount as penalty. When the sureties failed to show cause against the imposition of the bond amount as penalty satisfactorily, the learned trial Judge passed orders imposing the entire bond amount as penalty. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.6.2018 in M.C. No. 34 of 2017, the sureties have come up in appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C..

¶23

On a perusal of the materials, I find that the court below passed orders under Section 446 Cr.P.C. after complying with the statutory requirements. It is submitted that the main case now

¶24

stands quashed by this Court on application. Anyway, failure on the part of the sureties to produce the accused in court is liable to be dealt with under Section 446 Cr.P.C.. However, on a consideration of the various aspects, including the subsequent developments, I feel that a considerable amount of bond can be remitted under the law, and a fraction can be imposed as penalty.

¶25

In the result, the orders passed by the court below in M.C. No. 34 of 2017 imposing penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C. will stand confirmed subject to the modification that the amount of penalty payable by the appellants under the impugned order shall be Rs.5000/- each, and the balance amount will stand remitted under

the law.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

ds 14.08.2018

Mujeeb Rahman v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rahman v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Saji George Vs State of Kerala

Pushparajan Vs State

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

T.G. Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shajimon Vs State of Kerala