P.P. Abdul Khader vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 1510 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
                       CRL.A NO. 86 OF 2023
   ORDER DATED 10.10.22 IN MC 680/2022 IN SC NO.544/19 OF
         DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/SURETY NO.1 & 2:

    1    P.P. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 51 YEARS
         S/O. KUNHAMU, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE,
         THILLANKERLI AMSOM, THILLANKERI.P.O,
         KANNUR DT., PIN - 670702

    2    C. NOUSHAD, AGED 55 YEARS
         S/O. KUNHAHAMMED,
         BUSHARA MANZIL, AVILAD,
         KOOVERI AMSOM, ULIYIL DESOM,
         ULIYIL.P.O,KANNUR DT., PIN - 670702

         BY ADV CIBI THOMAS


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

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

         BY SRI. P.G. MANU, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2023,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.A.No.86/2023
                                    -:2:-

                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2023

This appeal has been preferred under Section 449 of the

Cr.P.C against the order passed by the Sessions Court,

Thalassery (for short 'the court below') in M.C No.680/2022 in

S.C.No.544/2019 dated 10.10.2022.

2. The appellants stood as sureties of the accused in

S.C.No.544/2019 pending at the court below by executing a bond

for ₹25,000/- each. Thereafter, the accused failed to appear at

the court below. The court below cancelled the bail bond and

issued show cause notice to the appellants. But, they did not

appear. Hence, the court below imposed a penalty of ₹25,000/-

each as per the impugned order. The said order is under

challenge in this appeal.

3. I have heard Sri. Cibi Thomas, the learned counsel for

the appellants and Sri. P.G. Manu, the learned Senior Public

Prosecutor.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellants stood as

sureties for the accused in S.C. No.544/2019 by executing a

bond for ₹25,000/- each. It is also not in dispute that the Crl.A.No.86/2023

accused failed to appear at the court below and non bailable

warrant was issued. The mere failure on the part of the accused

to appear at the court below would result in automatic forfeiture

of bail bond. Thus, the court below is absolutely justified in

treating the bail bond executed by the appellants as forfeited.

5. The court below imposed the entire bond amount as

penalty. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

the appellants are poor persons. They have no steady income to

pay the penalty. Considering the fact that the appellants are

poor, I am of the view that the penalty imposed can be reduced

to ₹10,000/- each.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty

imposed vide impugned order is reduced to ₹10,000/- (Rupees

ten thousand only) each, which shall be paid by the appellants

within one month from today, failing which legal consequences

shall follow.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp