Noushad vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 15380 Ker

Kerala High Court

Noushad vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2024

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                     CRL.APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER dated 02.09.2022 IN MC NO.19 OF 2022 OF
          FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT (POCSO), KALPETTA
APPELLANTS/SURETIES:

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

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

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


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

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

               SMT.MAYA.M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


        THIS    CRIMINAL   APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP    FOR    FINAL
HEARING    ON     05.06.2024,    THE   COURT    ON    THE   SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2
Crl.Appeal No.229 of 2024



                     P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
                  Crl.Appeal No.229 of 2024
    -----------------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 5th day of June, 2024

                            JUDGMENT

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).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. 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

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.

4. 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.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that the accused is a relative, but the relationship was

subsequently estranged. The accused is the step father of the

1st appellant. The 2nd 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.

6. 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.

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.

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr