Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
DINESH KUMAR K. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail bond forfeiture leads to penalty liability. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court considers leniency in penalty. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. modification of penalty by the court. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 02nd 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
2nd 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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
