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) 35364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J
Gouriamma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1338 OF 2008



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.Mohanlal
For the Respondents: Sajeev P.K.

Upon forfeiture of a bail bond under the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts possess the judicial discretion to reduce the penalty amount imposed on sureties, even if the sureties are not absolved from liability for the accused's non-appearance.

Headnote:The case involves an appeal filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the forfeiture of a bail bond due to the non-appearance of an accused before the trial court. The court examined the liability of sureties upon the forfeiture of bonds and analyzed the scope for leniency in the quantum of penalty imposed. The core issue was whether the subsequent production or arrest of the accused absolves the sureties from paying the penalty. Relying on established precedents, the court held that while the forfeiture remains valid, the court retains the judicial discretion to exercise leniency in the quantum of the penalty amount based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court reduced the penalty imposed on the sureties from Rs.50,000 to Rs.35,000 each, subject to timely payment before the court of first instance.

Table of Content
1. context of bail bond forfeiture and surety obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. discretionary reduction of penalty for bail bond forfeiture. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of June, 2026

The sureties in M.C.No.13/2000 in S.C.No.273/2000 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, 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 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], 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.50,000/- 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.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) each. There will be a direction to the appellants to pay the amount before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam on or before 10th July, 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 learned Sessions Judge shall take coercive steps to realise the same without fail. 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