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) 12896

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
USMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 234 OF 2026 | M.C. 4/2023 | S.C. NO.863 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.RAKESH
For the Respondents: RENJITH GEORGE

Forfeiture of bail bonds by sureties is valid despite the accused's subsequent appearance; penalties may be mitigated for fairness.

Headnote:The appeal arises from the forfeiture of bail bonds executed by the appellants, who stood as sureties for the accused. The court cited Thundichi v. State of Kerala for the principle that forfeiture is binding regardless of subsequent appearances by the accused. The penalty was reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.90,000/- each for the appellants, with a payment deadline set for 09.03.2026. Hence, the appeal is allowed in part, reducing the penalty.

Table of Content
1. sureties' liability in bail bonds. (Para 1 , 3)
2. court's consideration of penalty reduction. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026 The sureties in S.C.No.863/2021 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Manjeri, has filed this appeal under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

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

3. Precisely stating, the appellants herein stood as sureties for releasing the accused in this case before trial court and thereafter, due to non-appearance of the accused before the trial court, the bail bond executed by the appellants along with the accused has been forfeited.

4. As held in Thundichi v. State of Kerala [ 2009(4) KLT 67 ], on forfeiture of the bond, the accused would be produced by the sureties or the accused was later arrested would not save the sureties from paying the forfeited amount of penalty, though leniency in the quantum of penalty can be considered. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellants pleaded mercy in the matter of penalty, under the submission that the appellants are doing coolie works.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded for reasonable deduction in the penalty pointing out the fact that the actual forfeited amount was Rs.5,00,000/- each and the Special Court reduced the same to Rs.1,00,000/-

each.

6. In fact, the Special Court reduced the penalty to

20%. Hence, further reduction in penalty also could not be considered, so liberally. However, in the interest of justice, the penalty imposed by the court at Rs.1,00,000/- each is reduced to Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only) each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay the amount before the Special Court, Manjeri on or before 09.03.2026. It is specifically made clear that if the penalty will not be remitted within the said period, the appellants are bound to pay the entire amount, covered by the order impugned.

This appeal stands allowed as indicated above.

Sd/-

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