K N CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the sureties for the accused in S.C.No.256 of 2005 and at their instance the accused was released on bail on their executing bond for Rs. 10,000/- each. When the accused failed to appear before the Sessions Court, notice was served on the appellants, who are the sureties in Crl.M.C.No.1971 of 2005 in S.C.No.256 of 2005 but, there was no positive response from the side of the appellants and they failed to produce the accused and no explanation is offered for not remitting the bond amount. It is specifically recorded that on the date of the impugned order the appellants/sureties did not appear before the court in person and there was no representation for them. It is under the above circumstances, the court below issued the impugned order dated 25/11/2005 in Crl.M.C.No.1971 of 2005 under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. directing them to pay the bond amount of Rs. 10,000/- each and if defaulted, to undergo imprisonment in civil jail for one month each. It is the above order, in this appeal filed under Section 449 of Cr.P.C., challenged by the sureties.

(2.) Heard Sri.Binoy Ram.V, the learned counsel for the appellants and I have perused the impugned order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that no liability would lie against the appellants, since the accused, for whom the appellants stood as sureties, subsequently appeared before the court and faced the prosecution, which ended in acquittal in favour of him. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, considering the above fact and adopting a lenient view, the penalty amount may be reduced. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned order was resulted due to the failure on the part of the appellants in producing the accused for whom they stood as sureties and therefore, no interference is warranted.