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) 15163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ANAS.J – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 307 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.VRINDA BABU
For the Respondents: SR PP VIPIN NARAYAN .A

Sureties may face forfeiture penalties, but courts can exercise discretion to reduce such penalties based on circumstances.

Headnote:The appeal concerns the forfeiture of bail bonds by sureties under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following the accused's non-appearance. The court noted the legal precedent (Thundichi v. State of Kerala) regarding surety obligations and decided to reduce the forfeiture penalties due to the appellants' financial situation. The court permitted a reduction in the penalty amount from ₹50,000 to ₹15,000 for each surety, conditional on timely payment. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Table of Content
1. sureties are bound by bail conditions and penalties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. reduction of penalties based on the appellants' financial circumstances. (Para 4)
3. the court accepted the appeal for penalty reduction. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of March, 2026 The sureties for the accused in S.C.No.527/2023 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, 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 on bail 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 on the submission that the appellants are doing coolie works. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded for reasonable deduction in the penalty pointing out the fact that the actual forfeited amount was ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)

each.

5. Since 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 Sessions Court at ₹50,000/- each is reduced to ₹15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay the amount before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, on or before 10.04.2026. 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 and the Sessions Court shall proceed to realise the entire amount of penalty.

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