Bindu vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 14018 Ker

Kerala High Court

Bindu vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2024

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
 TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                    CRL.A NO. 660 OF 2024
    CRIME NO.1371 OF 2019 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION,
                          ALAPPUZHA
 ORDER DATED 20.11.2023 IN M.C.NO.31 OF 2023 IN SC NO.356
OF 2020 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/SURETY:

    1       BINDU
            AGED 61 YEARS
            D/O.MARYKUTTY. EDAMKUTTIYIL.PUNNAPRA.P.O
            ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688004
    2       JAYA @JAYA PRASANNAN
            AGED 59 YEARS
            KALAPPARAMBU VEEDU , PUNNAPRA.P.O, ALAPPUZHA,
            PIN - 688004
            BY ADVS.
            K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER
            ALTHAF AHMED ABDU


RESPONDENTS:

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


            SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


        THIS   CRIMINAL   APPEAL     HAVING   COME    UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    2
Crl.Appeal No.660 of 2024


                    P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
   -----------------------------------------------------------
                 Crl.Appeal No.660 of 2024
   -----------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024

                            JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 449 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). The appellants having

violated the bond executed by them for getting enlarged the

accused on bail in Sessions Case No.356 of 2020 pending

before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Alappuzha were

proceeded against and imposed with penalty of Rs.25,000/-

each under Section 446 of the Code. The appellants assails

the said order in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that on

receipt of show cause notice, the appellants appeared before

the trial court and undertook to produce the accused. Not only

that they did not produce the accused, but also they failed to

offer any explanation for not paying the penalty. It was in the

said circumstances, the trial court ordered them to pay the

bond amount as penalty.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that the 1st appellant is the mother of the accused and

the 2nd appellant, a neighbour. They are coolie workers having

no means of livelihood. Fearing threat from other the accused

could not appear before the court and that is the reason for

the appellants' inability to produce him in court also. Those

reasons are insufficient to get absolved from paying the

penalty. Of-course, those mitigating circumstances can be

taken into account to reduce the quantum of penalty.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the view that penalty of Rs.15,000/- will meet

the ends of justice. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.

Order imposing penalty is modified to the extent that the

appellants have to pay Rs.15,000/- each as penalty.

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE PV