Kerala High Court
Priju vs State Of Kerala on 3 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1724 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2023 IN M.C. NO.5/2023
IN SC NO.697 OF 2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
WADAKKANCHERY
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
1 PRIJU
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN , VENDARAVEETTIL HOUSE,
NEDUPUZHA DESOM, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, PIN - 680007
2 LENEESH
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. RAMAN , VETTIYATTIL HOUSE,
V.R. PURAM DESOM, PERAMBRA ,
CHAKLAKKUDY , THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680689
BY ADV MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
ADV.SEENA C. - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl. Appeal No.1724 of 2023
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No.1724 of 2023
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
Appellants are the counter petitioners in M.C. No.5/2023
in S.C. No.697/2021 on the files of Fast Track Special Court
(POCSO Cases), Wadakkancherry. As per the order dated
29.09.2023 the appellants were ordered to pay a penalty of
Rs.1,00,000/- each under the provisions of Section 446(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. That order is under
challenge in this appeal filed under Section 449 of the Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The appellants were the sureties of the accused in
S.C. No.697/2021. That was a case initiated alleging
commission of the offence punishable under Sections 328,
376 (2)(n), 3(f) and (n) and 506(1) of the IPC.
4. The appellants got the accused released on bail on
executing a bond binding themselves to pay an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- each in the event of a violation of the
conditions. The accused failed to appear before the court in
terms of the said bond, and thereby the bond stood forfeited.
When the trial court initiated proceedings and issued notice,
the appellants entered appearance, and sought time to
produce the accused. Despite giving sufficient opportunity, the
accused was not produced. No explanation was offered by the
appellants also. In the said circumstances, the trial court
ordered them to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants would
submit that the trial court totally went wrong while imposing
the whole amount of bond as penalty in a mechanical manner.
Without adverting to any of the circumstances, appeared from
the materials on record that the trial court imposed such an
amount as penalty. The appellants are the persons living in
penury, and they happened to be sureties because the
accused was a neighbour. In fact, the offence arose in
connection with a matrimonial dispute which also was a
relevant consideration while imposing a penalty, but the trial
court did not take that into account.
6. From the materials on record, it cannot be said that
the trial court committed any error while imposing a penalty.
However, it is not seen from the impugned order that the trial
court considered existence or not of any reason to remit a
part of the bond amount. A bail bond is to ensure the
presence of the accused before the court and not to enrich the
public exchequer. The appellants hail from a poor
circumstance and has limited resources. Hence, the whole
amount of the bond ought not have been imposed as a
penalty. The accused failed to appear before the court
resulting in retaining the case in the register of law long
pending cases. The trial of the case could not be had also. To
that extent the matter became serious. However, considering
the mitigating circumstances, I am of the view that a lenient
view in the matter of fixing the amount of penalty is liable to
be taken. A penalty of Rs.25,000/- each is sufficient.
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The
appellants are ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- each as penalty.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
SMF
