The court reduced the penalty for failure to produce a surety due to subsequent arrest of the accused, emphasizing judicial discretion in penalty adjustments.

JUDGMENT

The appellant challenges the order dated 21.04.2025 in M.C.No.36 of 2024 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri whereby she was imposed with a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- for her failure to produce the 3^rd accused in S.C.No.455 of 2020 to whom she had stood as one of the sureties.

2. S.C.No.455 of 2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri is a proceeding for the offence of murder. The appellant stood as the first surety for the 3^rd accused in the said crime and executed a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-. In violation of the conditions of bond, the appellant was unable to produce the surety after he absconded. Bailable as well as non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused and thereafter proceedings were initiated against the sureties. Though the appellant sought time to produce the accused, she was unable to do so while the second surety expired in the meantime. After noticing that the surety was unable to produce the accused, penalty was imposed for the entire bond amount.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The impugned order itself reveals that the accused has subsequently been arrested and produced before the court. It is mentioned that, on 12.03.2025, the accused was arrested and produced and he has been remanded to judicial custody. The appellant was the first surety to the 3^rd accused. Though technically, she was unable to produce the accused when called upon to do so, since the accused had subsequently been arrested and produced before the Court, I am of the opinion that a lenient view ought to be adopted.

5. The penalty imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is too exorbitant considering the entire circumstances including the circumstance that the appellant is a lady and a daily wage worker.

6. Having regard to the entire circumstances, though the penalty imposed upon the appellant by the court is justified, the quantum is on the higher side. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate that the quantum of penalty be reduced to Rs.7,500/-.

In the result, while confirming the penalty imposed upon the appellant, the quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs.7,500/-. Ordered accordingly. If the said quantum is not paid within one month from today, the appellant shall undergo default sentence of two months simple imprisonment.

The appeal is allowed in part.