Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Laly Shaji vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 26991 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 26991 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2024

Kerala High Court

Laly Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 6 September, 2024

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

                                                      2024:KER:67917
WP(CRL.) NO. 810 OF 2024

                                      1
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

     FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946

                           WP(CRL.) NO. 810 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

              LALY SHAJI, AGED 60 YEARS
              W/O SHAJI, NUMBELIL HOUSE, AYAVANA,
              SNDP JUNCTION ENANALLOOR VILLAGE
              MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 686 668.


              BY ADVS.
              V.N.MOHANADASAN
              P.JAYAKUMAR




RESPONDENTS:

      1       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

      2       DISTRICT COLLECTOR
              ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD    - 682 030.

      3       VILLAGE OFFICER
              ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 686 673



              SMT. SREEJA V (PP)


THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                                 2024:KER:67917
WP(CRL.) NO. 810 OF 2024

                                                  2




                            BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                       ......................................................
                               W.P.(Crl.) No.810 of 2024
                        ...................................................
                     Dated this the 6th day of September, 2024


                                         JUDGMENT

Petitioner's husband was one of the sureties to an accused in

S.C.No.886/2018 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court,

Muvattupuzha. The sureties had bound themselves to produce the

accused in the event of his failure to appear. However, after the

accused failed to appear, the sureties could not produce him and hence

the learned Sessions Judge forfeited the bail bond executed on

18.01.2022 and initiated proceedings against the sureties. Since the

sureties could not produce the accused, by order dated 23.01.2023,

they were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, as penalty for

breach of the bail bond.

2. In the meantime, petitioner's husband, who was one of the sureties

died on 13.02.2023. When distress warrant was issued against the

petitioner's husband, she approached the Sessions Court in

Crl.M.P.No.199/2024 in M.C.No.9/2022 in S.C.No.286/2018, seeking to 2024:KER:67917 WP(CRL.) NO. 810 OF 2024

recall the distress warrant. By the order dated 22.06.2024, the said

application was dismissed. Thus, this writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the aforesaid

order.

3. I have heard Sri.V.N.Mohandasan Veliyath Narayanan, the learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public

Prosecutor.

4. Section 446(4) Cr.P.C., provides that where a surety to a bond dies

before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all

liability in respect of the bond.

5. In the instant case, the bond executed on 18.01.2022 was forfeited and

penalty was imposed on 23.01.2023. On both those occasions

petitioner's husband was alive as he died only on 13.02.2023.

Therefore, petitioner's husband's estate is liable for the penalty

ordered. The order dated 23.01.2023 in M.C.No.9/2022 is not known

to have been subjected to any challenge, and therefore, the said order

has become final as well.

6. Section 446(4) Cr.P.C. provides that a person can seek discharge from

the liability of the bond or at least remit only a portion of the 2024:KER:67917 WP(CRL.) NO. 810 OF 2024

penalty. In either way Section 449 Cr.P.C. provides an appeal against

all orders passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. When remedy of an

appeal is provided under Cr.P.C. against the final orders, recourse to

Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not permissible.

Therefore, petitioner's remedy, if any, is to prefer an appeal against

the impugned order.

7. Reserving the liberty of preferring an appeal in accordance with law,

this writ petition is dismissed.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/07/09/2024 2024:KER:67917 WP(CRL.) NO. 810 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 810/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.MC NO. 09/2022 DATED 23-01-2023.


EXHIBIT P2                   TRUE   COPY       OF   DEATH   CERTIFICATE   DATED
                             20-06-2024

EXHIBIT P3                   TRUE COPY DISTRESS WARRANT ISSUED TO THE
                             DISTRICT   COLLECTOR    ERNAKULAM   DATED
                             24-01-2023

EXHIBIT P4                   TRUE COPY OF CRL.M.P 199/2024, ADDL.DISTRICT
                             AND SESSIONS COURT DATED 22-06-24
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter