The court can reduce penalty for bond forfeiture, reaffirming judicial discretion in penalty assessment.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 02^nd day of March, 2026 The surety No.2 in S.C.No.132/2023 in the files of the Additional Sessions Court - IV, Thalassery, has filed this appeal under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

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

3. Precisely stating, the appellant herein stood as

2^nd surety 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 appellant along with the accused has been forfeited.

4. As held in Thundichi v. State of Kerala [2009(4) KLT 67] , which is cited in the order impugned, on forfeiture of the bond, subsequent arrest of the accused would not save the surety from paying the forfeited amount of penalty, though leniency in the quantum of penalty can be considered.

Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant pleaded mercy in the matter of penalty.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded for reasonable deduction in the penalty pointing out the fact that the actual forfeited amount was Rs.50,000/- each.

6. Since the reduction of the penalty amount alone is the matter to be considered by this Court, in the interest of justice, the penalty imposed by the court at Rs.50,000/- is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. There will be a direction to the appellant to pay the amount before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thalassery on or before 13.03.2026. It is specifically made clear that if the penalty will not be remitted within the said period, the appellant is bound to pay the entire amount, covered by the order impugned.

The appeal stands allowed as indicated above.

Sd/-