IMPORTANT POINT
Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Bail/surety bonds are executed to ensure presence of accused/appellant whenever required by court, and not as a guarantee for fine amount or amount sought to be realised.

ORDER

The petitioners were accused Nos.2 to 4 in S.T.No.908 of 2019 of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Kozhikode. The case originated from a complaint filed by the 1st respondent against the 1st accused company and its Directors, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court convicted the petitioners, sentenced the 1st accused company to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioners, with a fine of Rs.2,60,00,000/- . Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.63 of 2025 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, along with a petition (CMP No.419 of 2025) for suspending the sentence. By the impugned order, the appellate court suspended the execution of the sentence, subject to the petitioners executing bond for Rs.2,60,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. This Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by the above condition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, right from the decision in Motiram and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1978 KLT 747 (SC)] onwards, the constitutional courts have deprecated the practice of imposing onerous conditions while granting bail. It is argued that bail bonds are executed to secure the presence of the accused and not as a guarantee for the amount involved in the litigation. Relying on the decision in Renjith Kumar V.K. v. State of Kerala, [2024 (2) KLT 698], it is argued that the conditions of bail and the amount fixed for bail bonds cannot become an unjust source of captivity or detention.

3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. In the nature of the issue involved, notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.

4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellate court exempted the petitioners from remitting 20% of the fine amount under Section 148 of the N.I. Act upon finding that the petitioners cannot be considered as drawers of the cheque within the meaning of Section 148. Surprisingly, by the same order, the petitioners are directed to execute bond for Rs.2,60,00,000/- as a condition for suspending their sentence. As held by this Court in Renjith Kumar V.K. (supra), the quantum of the bond cannot be made to depend on the amount involved in criminal cases. The bail/surety bonds executed upon suspension of the sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C, are in Form 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice in Kerala and in accordance with Section 441 of the Code. The object of Section 441 is to make the sureties responsible for the attendance of the accused at the time and place mentioned in the bond. It is therefore clear that, bail/surety bonds are executed to ensure the presence of the accused/appellant whenever required by the court, and not as a guarantee for the fine amount or the amount sought to be realised.

For the aforementioned reasons the Crl.M.C. is allowed. Execution of the sentence imposed on the petitioners shall be suspended on their executing bond for Rs.One lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.