Allowed

Muhammed Irshad.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2020CRL.A/135/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants, sureties for an accused, appealed against a single judge order forfeiting their bond and imposing a Rs.25,000 penalty each due to the accused's absence. The court allowed the appeal in part. The high court modified the penalty to Rs.5,000 each, recognizing that leniency was merited because the higher court had quashed related proceedings. 'Ashok Menon' bore the bench.

What did the court decide?

The order imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000 on each appellant was modified to a penalty of Rs.5,000 each.

Muhammed Irshad.K Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 14TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.135 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST ORDER DATED 05-12-2018 IN M.C.NO.52 OF 2018 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-III, KASARAGOD

¶7

APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 MUHAMMED IRSHAD.K, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MAHIN, KUNDADUKKAM HOUSE, UDMA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2 ABDUL KHADER, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED, THEKKIL HOUSE, P.O.UDMA PADINHAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN – 628 231

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK – SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.A.No.135 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2020

¶20

The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Court
of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasaragod, under Section
446 Cr.P.C in M.C.No.52/2018 forfeiting their bond and imposing
a penalty of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each
for defaulting to produce accused name MuhammedKunhi in
S.C.No. 429/2018 on the files of that court for whom they stood as
sureties. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused were
absconding and therefore, there was no reason to grant any
remission or show any leniency. It is seen that the entire
proceedings in S.C.No.238/2016 was quashed by this court in
Crl.M.C.No.461/2019 vide order dated 16.01.2019 and in
consequent to that, the proceeding against all the accused were
dropped by the Sessions Court, vide judgment dated 01.03.2019 in
S.C.No.429/2018 which includes the proceedings against
MuhammedKunhi, the 2nd accused for whom the appellants had
stood surety.

¶21

2.In view of the dropping of the proceedings against the
accused for whom the appellants had stood surety, leniency has

¶22

CRL.A.No.135 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

to shown regarding the penalty to be imposed upon them and the
Crl.Appeal is allowed in part and the order to impose the penalty
of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each is
modified and the appellants are directed to pay a penalty of
Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) each.

¶25

Hence, the Crl.Appeal is allowed in part.

¶26

 Sd/-

¶27

 ASHOK MENON
 JUDGE

¶28

NR/03/02/20

Muhammed Irshad.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Irshad.K v. 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

Anandu Vs Shyamkumar S.B.

Shahim Sha., Vs the State of Kerala

Eldhose K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Laiju Mathew, Vs Joseph Xavier

Mithun Vs State of Kerala

S. Vinod Vs State of Kerala