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) 35362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J
Shailaja – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 774 OF 2008



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Dinesh
For the Respondents: Sajeev P.K.

Upon forfeiture of a bail bond under S. 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts have the discretion to reduce the quantum of penalty imposed on sureties, even if the accused was not produced, in the interest of justice.

Headnote:The appellants challenged the penalty imposed under S. 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, following the forfeiture of bail bonds due to the non-appearance of the accused. The court examined the liability of sureties when the accused fails to appear and the quantum of penalty prescribed upon bond forfeiture. The court addressed whether bail bond forfeiture warrants full penalty or if leniency is permissible. Relying on settled judicial precedent, it observed that while forfeiture of the bond does not exempt sureties from penalty even if the accused is subsequently produced, the court maintains the discretion to mitigate the quantum of the penalty in the interest of justice. The court reduced the penalty from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 15,000 for each appellant, subject to payment within the stipulated timeframe.

Table of Content
1. procedural context of bail bond forfeiture appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. judicial discretion in mitigating penalty for bail bond forfeiture. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of June, 2026

The sureties for the accused in S.C.No.207/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-I), Thiruvananthapuram, have 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 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.

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.20,000/- 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.20,000/- each is reduced to Rs.15,000/- each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay the amount before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court- I), Thiruvananthapuram on or before 29.06.2026. 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.

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