Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SAJEEVAN M.D – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second surety imposed with a penalty for absconded accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. representation of both appellant and respondent in court. (Para 3) |
| 3. court reviews penalty quantum and reduces it. (Para 5) |
| 4. final decision allows the appeal in part. (Para 6) |
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.A. No.1646 of 2025 ----------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred by the second surety to the accused in S.C. No.671 of 2022 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, North Paravoor.
2. By the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 in M.C. No.46 of 2024, the surety has been imposed with a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is equivalent to the bond amount.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The appellant was the second surety to the accused in a Sessions Case. After the accused absconded, the sureties were called upon to produce him. However, they failed to do so. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the sureties. The appellant, being the second surety, was unable to produce the accused, and therefore, a 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
