Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
PANCHALI, DHANA P.D – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 1747 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.S.ANISHAD, SMT.LIMNA BHASKARAN, SMT.K.K.SHEEBA, SMT.ARCHANA MITHRAN O.K., SMT.SREEPARVATHI G.V.
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Ensuring due process and the right to contest bond forfeiture under criminal procedure.
Headnote:The petitioners, as sureties for a counter petitioner in a prior case initiated under Section 110(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenged the forfeiture of their bond on grounds of insufficient opportunity to contest. The Court found the notices for forfeiture to be erroneous given the counter petitioner's subsequent appearance. Therefore, quashing the notices was deemed appropriate while allowing proceedings to continue against the counter petitioner if noncompliance occurs. The ruling underscores the requirement of due process in bond forfeiture proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sureties challenge bond forfeiture (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel arguments presented (Para 3) |
| 3. court observations on due process (Para 4) |
| 4. ruling on quashing notices (Para 5) |
ORDER
The petitioners are the sureties of the counter petitioner in M.C.No.216/2023 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Irinjalakuda, which was initiated against the counter petitioner under Section 110 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
2. The petitioners have stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that they had stood as sureties for the counter petitioner in the above case. The counter petitioner was present before the above Court on 27.11.2024 and sought for time to file his explanation to the report filed by the Police. But, the above Court compelled the counter petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties. Subsequently, the Station House Officer, Kaipamangalam filed a report stating that the counter petitioner has violated the bond conditions by getting himself involved in a subsequent crime. Immediately, the above Court issued notice to the petitioners directing them to appear on 17.09.2025 and show cause why the bond executed by them should not be forfeited. In fact the counter petitioner was not granted an opportunity to show cause why he should not be required to give security for good behaviour. Moreover, there was no substance of information in the order passed by the above Court. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Annexures 2 and 3 notices issued to the petitioners, directing them to show cause why the bond executed by them should not be forfeited and directing them to pay penalty of Rs.50,000/- each to the Government are erroneous and illegal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that, subsequent to Annexures 2 and 3 notices, the counter petitioner had appeared before the said Court and got himself enlarged on bail. He has been now be directed to appear before the said Court on 29.04.2026.
5. In light of the above submission, I am of the view that Annexures 2 and 3 notices are liable to be quashed, because the counter petitioner has already appeared before the above Court. Thus, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash Annexures 2 and 3 notices.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C., by quashing Annexures 2 and 3 notices issued to the petitioners. Nonetheless, the order will not stand in the way of the above Court proceeding as against the counter petitioner, in case he fails to appear before the above Court on any of the posting dates.
Sd/-
