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) 31381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J
Ummer – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1318 OF 2006



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Vipin Narayan A.

Upon forfeiture of a bail bond due to an accused's non-appearance, sureties remain liable for the penalty; however, appellate courts possess the discretion to reduce the quantum of the penalty in the interest of justice based on individual circumstances.

Headnote:The appeal concerns the forfeiture of bail bonds under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants served as sureties for an accused who failed to appear before the trial court, leading to the forfeiture of the bond. The court evaluated the necessity of penalty imposition despite subsequent production or arrest of the accused, balancing the obligations of the sureties against the potential for leniency. The core issue is whether the sureties are liable for the penalty upon the forfeiture of the bond and whether such penalty can be reduced in the interest of justice. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that while sureties are not exonerated from penalty merely because the accused was later produced or arrested, the court retains the discretion to impose a reduced quantum of penalty based on the specific circumstances and the financial capacity of the sureties. The court allowed the appeal in part and reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 25,000 for each surety, subject to timely payment, failing which the full original amount would be recovered.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeal against bail bond forfeiture. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. legal liability of sureties and arguments for penalty reduction. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's discretion to reduce penalty amount. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2026 The sureties in M.C. No.2/2006 in S.C.No.24/2004 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court [Fast Track Court-III (Adhoc)], Manjeri, has filed this appeal under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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 7th accused in the above case before trial court and thereafter, due to non-appearance of the 7th accused before the trial court, the bail bond executed by the appellants along with the 7th 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, under the submission that the appellants are doing coolie works.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for deduction in the penalty pointing out the fact that the forfeited amount is only Rs.30,000/- each and this appeal is of the year 2006.

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.30,000/- each is reduced to Rs.25,000/- each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay Rs.25,000/- each before the Additional District and Sessions Court [Fast Track Court-III (Adhoc)], Manjeri on or before 01.07.2026. 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. Then the trial court shall proceed with coercive steps to recover the entire sum of Rs.30,000/-

from the appellants.

7. This appeal stands allowed as indicated above.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court, within seven days for information and compliance, without fail.

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