Partly allowed

. Noushad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024CRL.A/229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants, who were sureties for a POCSO accused, challenged the order of forfeiture of their bail bond of Rs.50,000 each due to the accused's initial non-appearance. The court accepted their plea for leniency given the estranged relationship and the accused's subsequent appearance and medical condition, modifying the penalty to Rs.15,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified to direct appellants to pay Rs.15,000/- each as penalty.

. Noushad 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRL.APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2024

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER dated 02.09.2022 IN MC NO.19 OF 2022 OF

¶6

FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT (POCSO), KALPETTA

¶7

APPELLANTS/SURETIES:

¶8

1 NOUSHAD, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O IBRAHINI, ULLATUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTATHARA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN – 673122.

¶9

2 SAINABA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O USSAIN,AGED 46/2018 KARATTU VEETIL HOUSE,THRIKKAIPATTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673122.

¶10

BY ADVS. ASWINI SANKAR R.S. P.YADHU KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.

¶13

SMT.MAYA.M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.Appeal No.229 of 2024

¶17

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶18

----------------------------------------------------------Crl.Appeal No.229 of 2024

¶19

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2024

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellants assail the order of the trial court in M.C.No.19 of 2022 in S.C.No.56 of 2020 by which they were ordered to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000/- each under the provisions of Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code).

¶22

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

¶23

The appellants were the sureties to the accused in S.C.No.56 of 2020. The accused was granted bail by the Sessions Court subject to conditions, inter alia , that he should execute a bail bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties. The appellants executed the bond as sureties binding themselves to produce the accused as and when required and in default to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to

¶24

¶25

Crl.Appeal No.229 of 2024

¶26

the State. The case was subsequently made over to the Fast Track Special Court, Kalpetta. That court initiated M.C.No.19 of 2022 owing to the non-appearance of the accused and consequent forfeiture of the bond.

¶27

Notice was issued to the appellants to appear and show cause why the penalty should not be imposed on them. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that notice was served on the appellants, but they did not appear before the trial court or offer any explanation. It was in the said circumstances, the trial court imposed the penalty in terms of the impugned order. The fact that the accused failed to appear before the court in terms of the conditions in the bail bond and that the appellants failed to appear before the trial court despite receipt of show cause notice are borne by records. Therefore, the trial court cannot be found fault with for imposing penalty on the appellants.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the accused is a relative, but the relationship was

¶29

¶30

Crl.Appeal No.229 of 2024

¶31

subsequently estranged. The accused is the step father of the 1^st appellant. The 2^nd appellant is the sister of accused's mother. The accused in the interregnum met with an accident and had been undergoing treatment. On verification of the e-court services concerning proceedings in S.C.No.23 of 2023 (S.C.No.56 of 2020 prior to the transfer of the case to the register of long pending cases), it is seen that the accused subsequently appeared before the court. Now, he is in judicial custody. The said sessions case is pending trial. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the accused met with an accident and suffered a paralytic stroke. He is even now under treatment. Pointing out those aspects, the learned counsel seeks to reduce the amount of penalty.

¶32

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the appellants deserve leniency. I am of the view that a penalty of Rs.15,000/each shall meet the ends of justice.

¶33

¶34

Crl.Appeal No.229 of 2024

¶35

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified and the appellants are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- each as penalty.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

dkr

. Noushad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

. Noushad 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

Wilson @ Francis Vs State of Kerala

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

Krishnan @ Vasanan Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Commissioner Vs Anis Mohammed Hussain

Amrit Raj Baby, Vs State of Kerala

Xxxxxxx Vs State of Kerala