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) 15465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
SUNDARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 2108 OF 2026 | S.T.NO. 22 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JAI GEORGE, SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE, SMT.DEBORAH THAMBI, SHRI.DARSHAN A.D.
For the Respondents: SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK

The court exercises inherent powers to restore bail based on exceptional circumstances caused by representation failures.

Headnote:The Court considers the inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and acknowledges the petitioner's representation by counsel, who failed to inform her of important court dates, impacting her trial process. The court acknowledges exceptional circumstances and rules to restore bail, emphasizing fair trial principles. The petitioner's circumstances warrant leniency in the face of procedural failures.

Table of Content
1. key facts leading to the case's trial. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments made by counsel regarding representation. (Para 3)
3. court's reasoning and observations. (Para 4)

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.22/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate – V, Kottayam, (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has been filed against her alleging the commissioning of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act ,1881.

2. The petitioner has stated in the criminal miscellaneous case that, the above complaint was originally filed before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate– III, Kottayam, and numbered as S.T.No.3187/2021. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the present Court and the petitioner has got herself enlarged on bail. The petitioner is a housewife and a resident of Mangalore. The petitioner’s counsel had failed to inform her regarding the posting date, i.e., the date the complaint was posted for trial. Immediately, the Trial Court has cancelled the bail bond and issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the petitioner. There is no willful latches or negligence on the part of the petitioner in not appearing before the Trial Court on the last posting date. The petitioner is ready to appear before the Trial Court on the next posting date and file applications to recall the non-bailable warrant and also to get herself enlarged on bail, if necessary. The petitioner is apprehensive that her applications may not be considered on the date of her surrender and she may be remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. On a consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the petitioner is represented by a Counsel, who failed to inform the petitioner regarding the posting date, and that the petitioner is a woman, who hails from Mangalore, taking a lenient view in the matter and to ensure a fair trial, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out exceptional circumstances to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS .

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C., by setting aside the order dated 24.02.2026, and order the petitioner's and her sureties' bail bonds to be restored to file, subject to the condition that the petitioner appears before the Trial Court on 18.03.2026, failing which, the order dated 24.02.2026 will stand restored.

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