A bond executed for attendance mandates forfeiture upon non-appearance, requiring the sureties to provide sufficient cause for any penalties imposed.

ORDER

This appeal arises from the order dated 27.01.2021 in M.C No.1/2021 in S.C No.242/2017 passed by the Fast Track Special Court, Changanacherry.

2. The appellants herein were the sureties of the accused in S.C.No.242/2017. The appellants along with the accused executed a bond for Rs.50,000/- undertaking that the accused shall attend the Court and forfeit the bond amount on the failure of the appearance of the accused. When the accused failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the bail bond, the bond stood forfeited. Subsequently, the Court below registered the above referred M.C against the appellants. Notices were served on the appellants to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. When the appellants failed to show sufficient cause, the Court directed them to pay penalty of Rs.50,000/- each.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Court in appeal.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Court below did not grant sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court.

6. The fact that the accused failed to appear before the Court, when required, is admitted. Notice to show cause under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was served on the appellants, as is evident from the impugned order. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the appellants did not get sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court and that the failure on their part is due to the reasons beyond their control.

7. Where a bond is for appearance of a person before a Court, a default in his appearance, when he is not exempted by the Court, will lead to automatic forfeiture. There is no necessity of recording any satisfaction, reason or proof at the stage of forfeiture of the bond, as the mere absence of the accused on the date fixed would result automatically in the forfeiture of the bond. The law on this point was settled by a Division Bench of by this Court in Thundichi v. State of Kerala [ 2009 (4) KLT 67 ].

8. Once the bond has been forfeited, the Court is competent to call upon the concerned sureties or the person bound by it to pay the penalty therein or to show cause why it should not be paid. The appellants failed to show sufficient cause for the non-payment of penalty. Therefore, this Court finds that the Court below is perfectly justified in holding that the appellants are liable to pay penalty.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the penalty imposed is excessive. It is submitted that the appellants have no financial capacity to pay the penalty imposed. The learned counsel contended that the appellants are hailing from impecunious circumstances.

10. Considering the entire circumstances, this Court is satisfied that a penalty of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) each is sufficient in the interest of justice. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The penalty payable by the appellants is modified as Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) each and in default of the payment, to undergo detention in Civil Prison for a period of one month.