SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
NELBY THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 155 OF 2026|CRIME NO.10/2017|M.C. 6/2025|SC (NDPS) NO.50 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BOBY THOMAS, SHRI.WINSTON K.V, SHRI.G.MOTILAL, SHRI.BINU BOSE, SMT.K.M.FATHIMA, SHRI.PAUL T. SAMUEL
For the Respondents: ADV. ANIMA.M

The forfeiture of a bond executed for the release of a vehicle involved in NDPS offenses is enforceable when the vehicle is not produced in Court.

Headnote:The appellants in this case are counter petitioners in a proceeding filed under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The first appellant was found responsible for transporting cannabis, leading to the forfeiture of surety bonds due to non-production of the vehicle. The Court, invoking Section 491 of BNSS, determined that the bond penalty must be enforced when a vehicle subject to confiscation is not presented in Court despite being conceded at prior hearings. The key issues revolved around whether the bond penalty could be mitigated. The court affirmed that non-production of the vehicle forfeits the bond amount, and substantial penalties are mandated to prevent loss to state revenues from confiscation procedures. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed based on the determined need to uphold financial liability under the legislation.

Table of Content
1. appeal under bnss regarding forfeiture protocols. (Para 1 , 2)
2. circumstances causing bond forfeiture and legal obligations. (Para 3 , 5)
3. confirmation of judicial decisions regarding bond and state revenue. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026 The counter petitioners 1 to 3 in M.C.No.06/2025 in S.C. (NDPS) No.50/2020 on the files of the Special Court for trial of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cases, Thodupuzha, have filed this appeal under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’ for short).

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

3. Precisely stating, the 1st appellant is the owner of a Swift car bearing registration No.KL-03-S-3388, which was found transporting 3.480 kg of dried Ganja on 29.03.2017 by accused Nos.1 to 4 in crime No.10/2017 of Excise Circle Office, Peermade. The 1st appellant filed Crl.M.P.No.78/2017 seeking interim custody of the vehicle.

By order dated 10.07.2017, the trial court allowed the petition on execution of a bond for an amount of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) each, wherein appellants 2 and 3 herein stood as sureties for releasing the car in this case before trial court. Thereafter, due to non-production of the vehicle before the trial court as directed, even after sufficient opportunities, the bond executed by the appellants was forfeited.

4. In the instant case, a bond for ₹3,00,000/- each was executed by the appellants herein, when interim custody of the vehicle, involved in an NDPS crime which is the subject matter of confiscation, was granted.Section 491BNSSlays down the procedure when bond has been forfeited. It has been provided as under:

“491. Procedure when bond has beenforfeited.(1) Where,- (a) a bond under this Sanhita is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited; or (b) in respect of any other bond under this Sanhita, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid.

Explanation.—A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred.

(2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Sanhita:

Provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.

(3) The Court may, after recording its reasons for doing so, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.

(4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond.

(5) Where any person who has furnished security under section 125 or section 136 or section 401 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 494, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section ag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top