M D HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted under Section 449 of the Cr.P.C. to impugn the order dated 3.7.2014 of the Sessions Court -I, Kasargod, rendered in M.C.No.55/2014 in S.C.No.1134/2012 [arising out of Crime No. 34/2009 of Badiadka Police Station, Kasargod]. Each of the two appellants stood as sureties to the accused in S.C.No.1134/2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court -I, Kasargod. The accused concerned, for whom the appellants stood sureties, after release on bail is said to have gone initially to Mumbai and Gulf country later, for employment and it is stated that he had promised the appellants that he has already informed the respondent -Police authorities about the change of address and that he will be available before the court below concerned on the next hearing date etc. It is the case of the appellants that initially the accused was in Mumbai and it is now learnt that he has subsequently gone to a Gulf country for employment. As theaccused was not available, the court below proceeded against the appellants herein, who stood as sureties to the said accused. The appellants presented themselves before the court below and they were questioned and they expressed that it is impossible to produce the accused, who was then in Mumbai and despite best efforts, they could not trace him. It is in the conspectus of these facts and circumstances that the court below, by the impugned order rendered in M.C.No.55/2014 in the above said Sessions Court on 3.7.2014 has ordered that the bail bond amount stands forfeited and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - each and that the balance amount is remitted and further that defaulter shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months in civil prison. It is this order of the court below in the above M.C. No.55/2014 that is impugned in this appeal.

(2.) HEARD Smt.Govindu.P.Renuka, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent -State of Kerala.

(3.) SMT .Govindu.P.Renuka, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are getting some meagre income by doing coolie work and looking after menialagricultural related works and that it is impossible for them to pay the penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - each as directed in the impugned order and that as they cannot pay such huge amount, to mulct them with further liability to undergo simple imprisonment for four months in civil prison for such default, would be disproportionate, unfair and unjust.