A surety's failure to produce an accused can lead to penalty affirmation but is subject to judicial discretion for reduction based on circumstances.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

----------------------------------------

Crl.A. No.1646 of 2025 ----------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th 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 of Rs.1,00,000/- has been imposed upon him, apart from a default sentence.

5. It is conceded that till date, the accused has not turned up before the court. Therefore, I am of the view that the imposition of the penalty in the impugned order is justified. However, considering the quantum of penalty, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the entire bond amount as penalty. The said quantum, according to me, is too onerous, and therefore, a liberal view ought to be adopted. Considering the entire circumstances, I deem it appropriate to reduce the quantum to Rs.30,000/-.

6. Accordingly, while confirming the order of penalty imposed on the appellant, the quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs.30,000/- Ordered accordingly. If the penalty is not paid within a period of two months from today, the appellant shall undergo a default sentence of two months.

The appeal is allowed in part.