Partly allowed

Bharathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jan 2024CRL.A/1589/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a partial appeal filed by appellant sureties challenging a penalty order for bail forfeiture. The court modified the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- each, considering the appellants' subsequent assistance in locating and arresting the accused.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to pay a modified penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.

Bharathan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 29TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.A NO. 1589 OF 2023

¶6

ORDER DATED 16.08.2023 IN M.C.NO.3 OF 2023 IN S.C.NO. 759/2020 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, WADAKKANCHERY APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 BHARATHAN

¶8

S/O.MAMI,PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI,MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680122

¶9

2 RAMESH S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KADLASSERY HOUSE, VENGINISSERY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680566

¶10

BY ADV. K.A.SREEJITH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶14

SHEEBA THOMAS PUBLIC - PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶16

FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.A.No.1589 of 2023

¶19

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶20

----------------------------------------------------------Crl.A. No.1589 of 2023

¶21

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2024

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

This is an appeal filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Appellants were the sureties of the sole accused in Sessions Case No.759 of 2020. Since there occurred failure on their part to produce the accused before the Court, the bond they had executed for getting the accused released on bail stood forfeited. In the proceedings initiated, i.e., M.C.No.3 of 2023, the court below imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- each as per the order dated 16.08.2023. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

It is seen from the impugned order that show cause notices were served on the appellants asking to explain why penalty should not be imposed on them for their failure to comply with the conditions in the bail bond they had executed. On receipt of the notice, they appeared before the court below through their counsel, but did not offer any

¶26

¶27

Crl.A.No.1589 of 2023

¶28

explanation. The learned counsel for the appellants does not controvert the said observations in the impugned order. The learned counsel however would submit that after filing of this appeal, the appellants furnished the whereabouts of the accused consequent to which, the police could arrest the accused and produce him before the court below. It is his further submission that since sufficient opportunity was not afforded only, the appellants could not produce the accused or to get him arrested. In that view, there occurred illegality in the order imposing the penalty. The learned counsel accordingly would submit that, at any rate, the appellants are entitled to get a lenient view in the matter of imposition of penalty.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused could be arrested and brought to the process of law. It is true that at the instance of the appellants, the police could arrest the accused. But, that is not a reason to absolve the appellants from the liability as per the bond.

¶30

When there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order, there is no reason to set it at naught. However, having the accused been arrested and produced before the

¶31

¶32

Crl.A.No.1589 of 2023

¶33

court, and as the arrest could be effected at the instance of the appellants, I am taking a lenient view in the matter. Taking all the aspects into account, the order imposing penalty is modified.

¶34

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and appellants are directed to pay penalty of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each.

¶35

Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶36

¶37

¶38

Crl.A.No.1589 of 2023

¶39

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1589/2023

¶40

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ACCUSED

Bharathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharathan 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

Shabeer Vs the State of Kerala

Subeesh, Vs State of Kerala

Fasal P.a., Vs State of Kerala

H Shajahan, Vs the State of Kerala

Sunitha Vs State of Kerala

Sanalkumar Vs State of Kerala