Accused sought quashing of a Special Court order forfeiting his bail bond and issuing a warrant after he failed to appear on a fixed date. Based on a Special Judge report and binding Division Bench precedent on automatic forfeiture of bond, the High Court held the order valid and dismissed the petition.
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 A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 368 OF 2024
CRIME NO.503/2023 OF VELLIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
IN SC NO.1205/2023 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
VISHNU
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O RAJAN, R/O CHAZHOOKKARAN HOUSE, KUTTIKADU DESOM,
PARIYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680724
BY ADVS.
GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
SANJU K. SIVAN
ARATHY P.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
SR PP - RENJITH GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No. 368 of 2024
2
ORDER
Dated this the 9 th day of April, 2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioner, to quash the proceedings dated 08.01.2024 in S.C. No.1205/2023 issued by the Fast Track Special Court, Chalakudy and to recall the warrant issued against the petitioner/accused as well as to restore the bail bond if cancelled.
“3. I may further submit that as there is default by the accused in not keeping himself present in court on the day fixed for his appearance there is automatic forefeiture of bond as held in Thundichi V State of Kerala 2009 ICO2663 and accordingly non-bailable warrant was issued against him and notice was ordered against his sureties. As the forefeiture of bond is automatic and the fact that bond was so forefeited was not specifically recorded in the
Crl.M.C. No. 368 of 2024
3
proceedings paper. I may further submit that as mere absence of accused on a single day would entitle automatic forefeiture of his bond non bailable warrant against him and notice to his sureties were ordered on 08-01-24 without expressly recording in the proceedings paper as to " automatic forefeiture of bond".
In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
SK
Crl.M.C. No. 368 of 2024
4
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 368/2024
PETITIONER ANNE |
XURES : |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Annexure A3 |
THE TRUE |
COPY |
OF |
THE |
OP SHEET OF |
PETITIONE |
ROF |
T |
ALUK |
HEADQUARTERS |
|
HOSPITAL, |
CHALAKU |
DY |
DATED |
08.01.2024 |
|
Annexure A4 |
THE TRUE |
COPY OF |
THE |
PROC |
EEDINGS OF FAST |
TRACK S |
PECIAL |
COU |
RT, |
CHALAKUDY IN |
|
S.C.1205/ |
2023 ISS |
UED |
ON 23 |
.01.2024 |
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Special Court's order forfeiting the bail bond, issuing a non-bailable warrant and notice to sureties on the accused's absence required interference or quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thundichi v State of KeralaRelied on
Thundichi V State of Kerala 2009 ICO2663
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VISHNU
STATE OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court