Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
BINDU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 660/2024
Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 446, 449 - The court upheld the imposition of a penalty on the appellants for failing to produce the accused on bail, but reduced the penalty amount based on the appellants' financial circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, who had executed a bond to get the accused enlarged on bail in a criminal case, were imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 each under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for failing to produce the accused. The appellants challenged this order in an appeal under Section 449 of the Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had failed to produce the accused and did not offer any explanation for the same. However, the court took into account the appellants' financial circumstances as coolie workers with no means of livelihood and reduced the penalty to Rs. 15,000 each.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in imposing the penalty of Rs. 25,000 each on the appellants for failing to produce the accused on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court has the discretion to impose a penalty under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for breach of bail bond conditions. However, the court should also consider the financial circumstances of the appellants in determining the appropriate penalty amount.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed in part, and the penalty imposed on the appellants is reduced from Rs. 25,000 each to Rs. 15,000 each.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
