The court may reduce penalties for bail bond forfeiture upon consideration of the surety's circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 30^th day of March, 2026 The sureties in S.C.No. 22/2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court – II, Kasaragod has filed this appeal under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.

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 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], 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 appellants pleaded mercy in the matter of penalty, under the submission that the appellants are the sole bread winners of their respective families. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded for reasonable deduction in the penalty pointing out the fact that the actual forfeited amount is Rs. 15,000/- each.

5. Since the 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 court on Rs.15,000/- each, is reduced to pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay the amount before the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge – II, Kasaragod on or before 18.05.2026. 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.

The appeal stands allowed as indicated above.