The penalty imposed on sureties can be modified based on subsequent actions of the accused, reflecting the court's discretion.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred against an order imposing penalty on the appellants who were sureties to the accused in S.C.No.17 of 2019 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the SC/ ST (PoA) Act, Nedumangad. Since after the accused absconded, the sureties were not able to produce him, they were imposed with a penalty of Rs.50,000/- each by the impugned order.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused has subsequently surrendered on 08.10.2025 and is now facing prosecution. It was also submitted that the inability of the appellants to produce the accused before the trial court was not purposeful and therefore a lenient view ought to be adopted. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submitted that the appeal lacks merit and is only to be dismissed.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that since the appellants had failed to produce the accused before the trial court, the penalty imposed on them is justified. However, since the accused had subsequently surrendered before the court on 08.10.2025, the quantum of penalty is on the higher side and the same requires to be modified and reduced to Rs.10,000/-.

Accordingly, while confirming the order of penalty imposed on the appellants by the impugned order dated 11.06.2025, the quantum of penalty is modified to Rs.10,000/- each, which shall be paid within one month from today failing which the appellants shall undergo default sentence of two months.

The appeal is allowed in part.