The High Court of Kerala allowed this criminal appeal in part regarding the forfeiture of a bail bond. The court held that no procedural irregularity occurred but remitted part of the penalty imposed on sureties due to the subsequent appearance of the accused.
The penalty of Rs.15,000 each imposed on the appellants is reduced to Rs.4,000 each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.A NO.2059 OF 2007
AGAINST ORDER DATED 10/10/2003 IN M.C.No.9 OF 2003 IN S.C.No. 595 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (ADHOC-I), KOLLAM
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 & 3/SURETIES:
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
SMT.MAYA M.N – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal was filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants were the sureties of accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.595 of 2000 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kollam. Since the 3rd accused failed to appear before the Court, in obedience to the conditions in the bail bond, the learned Sessions Judge forfeited the bond and issued show cause notice to the accused as well as the sureties. As per the order dated 10.10.2003, the learned Sessions Judge imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- each on the appellants holding that they failed to appear and show sufficient reasons for not imposing the penalty. The said order is impugned in this appeal on the ground that there was procedural violation.
3
Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007
would submit that no opportunity was given to the appellants for explaining the reason why the appellants could not produce the 3rd accused. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that notice issued under Section 446 of the Code, was served on both the appellants personally. It was after that the learned Sessions Judge considered the matter. On a perusal of the records, it is also evident that the appellants did not appear before the Sessions Court and explain the reasons for non production of the accused for whom they stood as sureties or for getting absolved from the penalty.
4
Crl.Appeal No.2059 of 2007
reason for non appearance of appellants before court. It is seen that the 3rd accused subsequently appeared before the Court. Taking all such aspects into account, I am of the view that the penalty amount imposed is liable to be reduced by giving remission of a part of it.
Accordingly, I allow this appeal in part and the amount
of penalty as per the impugned order is reduced as
Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) each.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE
PV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the forfeiture of bail bond and imposition of penalty on sureties suffered due to procedural irregularity.
Whether the penalty amount imposed on the sureties for non-production of the accused should be reduced.
The quantum of penalty reduction granted to the surety appellants.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
DILIPKUMAR S/O.SARASWATHY AMMA
JAYENDHAN S/O.APPU VELAYIL VEEDU
STATE OF KERALA
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
