JAMALUDHEEN FAROOQUE Vs. MUNEER AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were accused Nos.2 to 4 in S.T.No.908 of 2019 of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Kozhikode. The case originated from a complaint filed by the 1st respondent against the 1st accused company and its Directors, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court convicted the petitioners, sentenced the 1st accused company to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 and the petitioners, with a fine of Rs.2,60,00,000.00. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.63 of 2025 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, along with a petition (CMP No.419 of 2025) for suspending the sentence. By the impugned order, the appellate court suspended the execution of the sentence, subject to the petitioners executing bond for Rs..002,60,00,000.00 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. This Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by the above condition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, right from the decision in Motiram and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1978 KLT 747 (SC)] onwards, the constitutional courts have deprecated the practice of imposing onerous conditions while granting bail. It is argued that bail bonds are executed to secure the presence of the accused and not as a guarantee for the amount involved in the litigation. Relying on the decision in Renjith Kumar V.K. v. State of Kerala [2024 (2) KLT 698], it is argued that the conditions of bail and the amount fixed for bail bonds cannot become an unjust source of captivity or detention.

(3.) I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. In the nature of the issue involved, notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.