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) 21736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
RANJITH C S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 379 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SAURAV B., SMT.SAFNA P.S.
For the Respondents: SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN.A

Court may reduce penalty for bond forfeiture in pursuit of justice while adhering to legal precedents.

Headnote:The appeal arises under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the forfeiture of a bail bond due to the non-appearance of the accused. The court acknowledged the legal principle established in Thundichi v. State of Kerala, where bail bond forfeiture is upheld, but allows for leniency in the penalty imposed. The penalty was reduced to Rs.1,25,000/- each from Rs.2,50,000/- upon considerations of justice.

Table of Content
1. appeal against bail bond forfeiture. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. consideration of leniency in penalties. (Para 4 , 5)
3. final verdict to reduce penalty. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026 The sureties for the 2nd accused in S.C.No.1115/2024 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, North Paravur (later transferred to Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha), have 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 2nd accused on bail in this case before the Additional Sessions Court-I, North Paravur. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, and due to non- appearance of the 2nd accused before the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, 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 painting work.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded for reasonable deduction in the penalty pointing out the fact that the actual forfeited amount was Rs.5,00,000/-

each.

6. Since reduction of the penalty amount alone is the matter to be considered by this Court, in the interest of justice, the penalty reduced by the court at Rs.2,50,000/- each is reduced to Rs.1,25,000/- each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay the amount before the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha on or before 08.04.2026. 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 Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha shall proceed to realise the entire amount of penalty.

This appeal stands allowed as indicated above.

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