Partly allowed

Radhanandan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2022CRL.A/630/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants, as sureties for an accused released on bail, faced penalty imposition due to the accused's failure to appear. The Court held bond forfeiture automatic upon absence. While upholding liability, the penalty was modified from Rs.25,000 to Rs.1,000 per appellant due to financial hardship.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced to Rs.1,000 each; detention in Civil Prison for one week in default.

Radhanandan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

CRL.A NO. 630 OF 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C NO.36/2006 IN SC 40/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & IST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ALAPPUZHA DATED 27.10.2006.

¶7

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 RADHANANDAN PANACKALCHIRAYIL VEEDU, MSP WARD NO.4, KATTOOR MURI, KALAVOOR. 2 NAZAR SO.ISMAIL KUNJU KANDATHIL VEEDU, WARD NO.22, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SMT.R.BINDHU SANSTHAMANGALAM SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

SRI. RAJESH.A- SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER VIGILANCE

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.A No.630 of 2007

K.BABU, J.

Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2007

¶17

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal arises from the order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha in M.C.No.36/2006.

¶20

The appellants herein were the sureties of the accused in S.C.No.40/2006. The accused was released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). The appellants along with the accused executed a bond undertaking that the accused shall attend the Court and forfeit the bond amount on the failure of the appearance of the accused. When the accused failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the bail bond, the bond stood forfeited. Subsequently, the Court below registered the above referred M.C against the appellants. Notices were served on the appellants to show cause why

¶21

¶22

Crl.A No.630 of 2007

¶23

penalty should not be imposed. When the appellants failed to show sufficient cause, the Court directed them to pay penalty of Rs.25,000/- each.

¶24

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Court in appeal.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted

¶27

that the Court below did not grant sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court.

¶28

The fact that the accused failed to appear before the Court, when required, is admitted. Notice to show cause under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was served on the appellants, as is evident from the impugned order. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the appellants did not get sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court and that the failure on their part is due to the reasons beyond their control.

¶29

Where a bond is for appearance of a person before a Court, a default in his appearance, when he is not

¶30

Crl.A No.630 of 2007

¶31

¶32

exempted by the Court, will lead to automatic forfeiture. There is no necessity of recording any satisfaction, reason or proof at the stage of forfeiture of the bond, as the mere absence of the accused on the date fixed would result automatically in the forfeiture of the bond. The law on this point was settled by a Division Bench of by this Court in Thundichi v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 67].

¶33

Once the bond has been forfeited, the Court is competent to call upon the concerned sureties or the person bound by it to pay the penalty therein or to show cause why it should not be paid. The appellants failed to show sufficient cause for the non-payment of penalty. Therefore, this Court finds that the Court below is perfectly justified in holding that the appellants are liable to pay penalty.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the penalty imposed is excessive. It is submitted that the appellants have no financial capacity to pay the penalty imposed. The learned counsel contended

¶35

Crl.A No.630 of 2007

¶36

¶37

that the appellants are hailing from impecunious

¶38

circumstances.

¶39

Considering the entire circumstances, this Court is satisfied that a penalty of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) each is sufficient in the interest of justice.

¶40

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty payable by the appellants is modified as Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only) each and in default of the payment, they shall undergo detention in Civil Prison for a period of one week.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K.BABU JUDGE

¶43

Radhanandan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhanandan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Ramla Vs Khadeeja

Royal Blue Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Sabu, S/O. Sivan, Vs State of Kerala

Charlie Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala