Sureties are liable for forfeiture of bail bonds; penalty can be reduced at the court's discretion.

JUDGMENT

The sureties in S.C.No. 357/2023 in the files of the Additional Sessions Judge -II, North Paravur has filed this appeal under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail and perused the order impugned.

3. Precisely stating, the appellants herein stood as sureties for releasing the accused in this case before trial court and thereafter, due to non-appearance of the accused before the trial court, the bail bond executed by the appellants along with the accused has been forfeited.

4. As held in Thundichi v. State of Kerala [2009(4) KLT 67], on forfeiture of the bond, the accused would be produced by the sureties or the accused was later arrested would not save the surety from paying the forfeited amount of penalty, though leniency in the quantum of penalty can be considered. Thus the learned counsel for the appellants pleaded mercy in the matter of penalty, under the submission that the 1^st appellant is selling lottery tickets and the 2^nd appellant is doing coolie works. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded for reasonable deduction in the penalty pointing out the fact that the actual forfeited amount as Rs. 1,00,000/-.

5. Since the reduction of the penalty amount alone is the matter to be considered by this Court, in the interest of justice, the penalty imposed by the Court on the appellants to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay the reduced amount before the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge – II, North Paravur on or before 29.01.2026. It is specifically made clear that if the penalty will not be remitted within the said period, the appellants are bound to pay the entire amount, as per the order impugned.

The appeal stands allowed as indicated above.

SD/-