The court reinforces the principle of penalizing sureties for the non-appearance of accused when bond conditions are violated.

JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 23^rd day of January, 2026 This appeal has been filed under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 in M.C.No.82/2025 in S.C.No.684/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, imposing a penalty of ₹25,000/- on the appellant, who stood as the first surety for the accused in S.C.No. 684/2022.

2. In this matter, the appellant, along with another person, executed bonds for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- each, undertaking to ensure the appearance of the accused before the court.

Subsequently, the accused absconded and proceedings under Section 446 (1) Cr.P.C. were initiated. During the pendency of the proceedings, the second surety expired and, therefore, the proceedings continued only against the appellant. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the trial court imposed a penalty of ₹25,000/- for forfeiture of the bail bond.

3. On a consideration of the materials available, it is evident that the accused violated the conditions of the bond since the accused absconded and the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for such non- appearance. Though the bond amount executed by the appellant was ₹1,00,000/-, the trial court imposed only a penalty of ₹25,000/- on the appellant, which is very reasonable and does not call for any interference. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court, Muvattupuzha, forthwith for information and further steps.