Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
P.C. RAJAPPAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5119 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.R.SASITH, SMT.R.K.CHIRUTHA, SMT.ANJANA SURESH.E, SMT.REETHU JACOB, SMT.LIDHIYA GEORGE, SMT.HASNA JABIL
For the Respondents: SR.PP.SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
The inherent powers of the court can be exercised to quash unnecessary financial penalties on sureties whose obligations have lapsed.
Headnote:The Court analyzed the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerning the bond execution requirements imposed on sureties. The petitioners argued their incapacity to pay the forfeited bond due to old age and the lapse of the bond's time period, leading to the conclusion that the coercive actions against them were unwarranted. The Court held that, given the circumstances detailed by the petitioners, the forfeiture order was quashed to prevent undue financial hardship.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioners request to quash the forfeiture of bond. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court hears arguments from both sides. (Para 3) |
| 3. conditions for bond forfeiture and the court's decision. (Para 4 , 5) |
O R D E R Dated this the 5th day of February,2026 The petitioners are the sureties in M.C.No.117/2024 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla, which was initiated against the 4th respondent in the above case, who is none other than the son of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, the 4th respondent is an accused in several cases. Based on the report of the Pulikeezhu Police Station, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed a preliminary order under Section 129 r/w Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 ( BNSS ), directing the 4th respondent to execute a bond with two sureties in order to maintain good behaviour. Notwithstanding the undertaking made by the petitioners and the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent got involved in a subsequent crime. Consequently, the 2nd respondent forfeited the bond and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.25,000/- each within one month as per Annexure A2 order. The petitioners are both old and infirm. They do not have the means to deposit the bond amount. Moreover, the time period for which the bond was executed has already lapsed and the case has been dropped. Hence, Annexure A2 order may be quashed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4.As per the preliminary order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 129 of the BNSS , the 4th respondent and the petitioners executed a bond on 24.08.2024, that the 4th respondent will maintain good behaviour for a period of six months. Alleging that the 4th respondent has violated the said conditions in the order, by getting involved in a subsequent crime, that the 2nd respondent forfeited the bond and directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.25,000/- each.
5. Admittedly, the time period fixed in the bail bond is over and the 4th respondent has been discharged in the said case. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no necessity for the petitioners to deposit the money. Hence, I am of the view that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS .
In the aforesaid circumstance, I allow the Crl.M.C, by setting aside Annexure A2 order and directing the 2nd respondent not to initiate any coercive proceedings against the petitioners for realising the bond amount.
