The Court clarified that failure of the accused to appear results in automatic forfeiture of the bail bond, permitting no further satisfaction requirement.

K.BABU, J.

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

Criminal.R.P No.67 of 2026 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 O R D E R The challenge in this Crl.Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 07.08.2025 in Crl.Appeal No.503 of 2020 passed by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode.

2. The revision petitioners herein were the sureties of the accused in S.T No.1289/2020 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (NI Act Cases), Kozhikode. The accused was released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The revision petitioners along with the accused executed a bond undertaking that the accused shall attend the Court and forfeit the bond amount on the failure of the appearance of the accused. The accused absconded. When the accused failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the bail bond, the bond stood forfeited. Subsequently, the Trial Court registered M.C No.170/2024 under Section 446 Cr.P.C against the revision petitioners. Notices were served on the revision petitioners to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. When the revision petitioners failed to show sufficient cause, the trial Magistrate directed them to pay penalty of Rs.50,000/- each. The revision petitioners challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Appeal No.503/2024. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part and the order passed by the learned Magistrate was modified reducing the penalty imposed to Rs.20,000/- each.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioners are before this Court in Crl.Revision Petition.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the Court below did not grant sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court.

6. The fact that the accused failed to appear before the Court, when required, is admitted. Notice to show cause under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was served on the revision petitioners, as is evident from the impugned order. The contention of the counsel for the revision petitioners is that the revision petitioners did not get sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court and that the failure on their part is due to the reasons beyond their control. 7. Where a bond is for appearance of a person before a Court, a default in his appearance, when he is not exempted by the Court, will lead to automatic forfeiture. There is no necessity of recording any satisfaction, reason or proof at the stage of forfeiture of the bond, as the mere absence of the accused on the date fixed would result automatically in the forfeiture of the bond. The law on this point was settled by a Division Bench of by this Court in Thundichi v.

State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 67] .

8. Once the bond has been forfeited, the Court is competent to call upon the concerned sureties or the person bound by it to pay the penalty therein or to show cause why it should not be paid. The revision petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for the non- payment of penalty. Therefore, this Court finds that the Trial Court is perfectly justified in holding that the revision petitioners are liable to pay penalty.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that the penalty imposed is excessive. It is submitted that the revision petitioners have no financial capacity to pay the penalty imposed. The learned counsel contended that the revision petitioners are hailing from impecunious circumstances.

10. Considering the entire circumstances, this Court is satisfied that a penalty of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only)

each is sufficient in the interest of justice.

11. In the result, the penalty payable by the revision petitioners is modified as Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand o