2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SALIM, S/O ABDUL RAHMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 11487 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.S.ANISHAD, SMT.LIMNA BHASKARAN, SMT.K.K.SHEEBA, SMT.ARCHANA MITHRAN O.K., SMT.SREEPARVATHI G.V.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor SRI M P PRASANTH
Sureties cannot be penalized for the principal's breach of bond conditions under Section 141 of the BNSS.
Headnote:This decision pertains to a Criminal Miscellaneous Case involving the petitioners who stood as sureties for their son in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court quashed orders imposing penalties on the petitioners after determining their lack of liability as sureties for the counter-petitioner's actions, clarifying that penalties pertain solely to the counter-petitioner in the context of the bond's violation. The court exercised inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS in granting this ruling.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sureties are liable only for principal's bond conditions, not violations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's reliance on statutory provisions governing surety liabilities. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. inherent powers exercised to quash unjust orders against sureties. (Para 8) |
ORDER
The petitioners stood as sureties for their son, the counter-petitioner in M.C No. 208/2024 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, in a proceeding initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, pursuant to Annexure 1 preliminary order passed by the above Court, the petitioners stood as sureties for their son. As the counter-petitioner got involved in another crime, he was remanded to judicial custody. Immediately, the Station Head Officer, Kattoor Police Station filed a report before the above Court reporting that the counter petitioner had violated Annexure A1 preliminary order.
Consequently, the above Court initiated proceedings under Section 141 (1) (b) of the BNSS , and issued Annexure 3 and Annexure 4 notices to the petitioners ordering them to deposit a penalty of Rs.25,000/- and to show cause why the said amount should not be forfeited. Annexures 3 and 4 orders are ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, Annexures 3 and 4 may be quashed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.
4. In response to Annexure 1 the preliminary order, the counter-petitioner and the petitioners executed a bond for Rs.25,000/-, to ensure that the counter-petitioner keeps peace for a period of one year.
5. Alleging that the counter-petitioner got involved in another offence and, thereby, violated the bond conditions, the above Court has issued Annexures 3 and 4 notices to the petitioners to pay Rs.25,000/- as a penalty.
6. In the above context, it is profitable to extract Section 141 of the BNSS , which reads as follows: “(1) (a) If any person ordered to give security under section 125 or section 136 does not give such security on or before the date on which the period for which such security is to be given commences, he shall, except in the case next hereinafter mentioned, be committed to prison, or, if he is already in prison, be detained in prison until such period expires or until within such period he gives the security to the Court or Magistrate who made the order requiring it;
(b) if any person after having executed a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under section 136, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor-in- office, to have committed breach of the bond or bail bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-office may, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested and detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond or bail bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any other punishment or forfeiture to which the said person may be liable in accordance with law.
(2) When such person has been ordered by a Magistrate to give security for a period exceeding one year, such Magistrate shall, if such person does not give such security as aforesaid, issue a warrant directing him to be detained in prison pending the orders of the Sessions Judge and the proceedings shall be laid, as soon as conveniently may be, before such Court.
(3) Such Court, after examining such proceedings and requiring from the Magistrate any further information or evidence which it thinks necessary, and after giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard, may pass such order on the case as it thinks fit:
Provided that the period (if any) for which any person is imprisoned for failure to give security shall not exceed three years.
(4) If security has been required in the course of the same proceeding from two or more persons in respect of any one of whom the proceedings are referred to the Sessions