RAJAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are sureties for the 1st accused in S.C.No.1424/08 of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakara. As the accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties, subsequently jumped over the bail condition and consequently the trial court initiated proceedings u/s.446 of Cr.P.C. against the appellants and finally by an order dated 30.9.2008 in M.C.No.15/08, each of the appellants are directed to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. It is the above order challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1st accused for whom the appellants stood as sureties have subsequently appeared before the trial court and the trial against the said accused is in progress in S.C.No.148/09 in the trial court. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of the penalty amount.

(3.) As the 1st accused failed to appear before the trial court as and when required by the said court and the appellants failed to produce the 1st accused for whom they stood as sureties, the impugned order passed by the court below is perfectly legal and valid, since the appellants miserably failed to discharge their contractual obligation in producing the accused when required by the court below. Therefore no interference is warranted with the impugned order, on the ground of any illegality or incorrectness. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, the penalty amount fixed by the court below can be modified, particularly in the light of the fact that subsequently the accused have appeared before the court below and the trial is in progress.