Partly allowed

Gomathy, D/O. Velutha, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2023CRL.A/515/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal concerned the forfeiture of a bail bond and the penalty imposed on a surety for the accused's failure to appear. The High Court upheld the forfeiture but modified the imposed penalty to Rs.500 due to the appellant's financial constraints and directed imprisonment in default of payment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part. The penalty on the appellant is modified to Rs.500, and in default of payment, detention in Civil Prison for one month is ordered.

Gomathy, D/O. Velutha, Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.A NO. 515 OF 2007

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945

¶7

CRL.A NO. 515 OF 2007

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 20/2005 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT
(ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

APPELLANT:

¶10

GOMATHY, D/O. VELUTHA,
LAKSHAM VEEDU, ANATHALAVATTOM DESOM,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADVS.
SIBY MATHEW
PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY SRI.G.SUDHEER-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.A NO. 515 OF 2007

K.BABU, J.

Crl.A No.515 of 2007

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal arises from the order dated 17.3.2005 passed by the

¶26

Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc) No.II, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.No.20/2005.

¶27

The appellant herein was one of the sureties of the accused in S.C.No.65/2003. The accused was released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). The appellant/counter petitioner No.2 along with the accused executed a bond undertaking that the appellant 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 counter petitioners. Notice was served on the counter petitioners to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. When the counter

¶28

CRL.A NO. 515 OF 2007

¶29

¶30

petitioners failed to show sufficient cause, the Court directed them to pay

¶31

penalty of Rs.10,000/- each.

¶32

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/counter petitioner No.2

¶33

is before this Court in appeal.

¶34

Heard both sides.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court

¶36

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

¶37

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 appellant, as is evident from the impugned order. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant did not get sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court and that the failure

¶38

on his part is due to the reasons beyond his control.

¶39

Where a bond is for appearance of a person before a Court, a

¶40

default in his appearance, when he is not exempted by the Court, will lead to automatic forfeiture. There is no necessity of recording any satisfaction,

¶41

reason or proof at the stage of forfeiture of the bond, as the mere absence

¶42

CRL.A NO. 515 OF 2007

¶43

¶44

of the accused on the date fixed would result automatically in the forfeiture

¶45

of the bond. The law on this point was settled by a Division Bench of this

¶46

Court in Thundichi v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 67].

¶47

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 appellant 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 appellant is liable to pay penalty.

¶48

The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the penalty imposed is excessive. It is submitted that the appellant has no financial capacity to pay the penalty imposed. The learned counsel contended that the appellant is hailing from impecunious circumstances.

¶49

Considering the entire circumstances, this Court is satisfied that a penalty of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) is sufficient in the interest of justice.

¶50

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty payable by the appellant is modified as Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in

¶51

CRL.A NO. 515 OF 2007

¶52

¶53

default of its payment, to undergo detention in Civil Prison for a period of

¶54

one month.

¶55

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶56

Gomathy, D/O. Velutha, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gomathy, D/O. Velutha, 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

Syam Babu Vs State of Kerala

Unni Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

Aswathy Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

.Harley George Vs State of Kerala & Others

Kavathiparambu Chidambaran Vs State

Kalesh.G Vs State of Kerala