SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Ker) 389

P.D.RAJAN
VASANTHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:G. Sudheer and M. Jayasree, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Seena Ramakrishnan, Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT

P.D. RAJAN, J.

1. The question under challenge in this appeal is the legality of the order of forfeiting the bail bond without giving show cause notice to the 2nd surety is sustainable in Law?

The appellants were sureties of the accused in S.C. No. 1675 of 2001 of the Additional Sessions Court Neyyattinkara (Abkari Act Cases) for offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The accused in the above case was released on bail executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- each. During trial accused absconded and notices were issued to the sureties. Notice against first surety was served and no notice to the second surety. The appellants neither appeared before court nor shown any reason for their non appearance. In the circumstance, bond amount was forfeited and directed to recover the penalty amount as fine under the code of criminal procedure.

The accused subsequently appeared before trial court and took bail on 7.12.2005 on executing fresh surety bond. The case against the accused (SC No. 1675 of 2001) was tried in the Additional Sessions Court and he was acquitted by that Court. It is true that the accused was released on bail by the trial court on executing a bond for Rs.










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top