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) 25967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
SHAJIMON K.K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 497 OF 2026|MC NO.4 OF 2025|S.C.No.827/2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: REJI R.
For the Respondents: VIPIN NARAYAN.A

Sureties liable for bail bond forfeiture penalty post-accused non-appearance; quantum reducible on leniency grounds.

Headnote:Under Section 495 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 446 Cr.P.C.), sureties appeal forfeiture of bail bond due to accused's non-appearance, where trial court imposed Rs.50,000 penalty each after forfeiting Rs.1,00,000 bond. Court finds sureties liable post-forfeiture regardless of accused's later arrest, but allows leniency in quantum. Issues framed as whether penalty reduction warranted given forfeiture circumstances. Ratio: As per precedent, forfeiture binds sureties to penalty payment, though quantum may be reduced considering actual forfeiture amount. Appeal allowed; penalty reduced to Rs.25,000 each, payable by 18.05.2026, else full amount due.

Table of Content
1. forfeiture liability persists; quantum reducible. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. sureties appeal bail bond forfeiture penalty. (Para 3)
3. penalty halved with payment deadline. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 08thday of April, 2026 Sureties of accused in S.C.No.827/2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, to whom against M.C.No.04/2025 has been registered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha, have filed this appeal under Section 495 of theBharatiya 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 and the trial court imposed penalty on the sureties which reads as under:

“In the result, the MC is allowed and penalty of Rs.50,000/- each is imposed on the counter petitioners 1 and 2 u/s.491 BNSS /446 Cr.P.C. Remission of the balance is allowed.”

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.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded for reasonable deduction in the penalty pointing out the fact that the actual forfeited amount was Rs.1,00,000/- 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 imposed by the court at Rs.50,000/- each is reduced to Rs.25,000/- each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay the amount before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha 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 and the Sessions Court shall proceed to realise the entire amount of penalty.

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