IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 322 of 2009()
1. SAIRANDRI, D/O.KALYANI 65 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU. M.P
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :11/02/2009
O R D E R
V.K. MOHANAN, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Crl. Appeal No. 322 OF 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal under Section 449 of Cr.P.C. at
the instance of the second surety for the first accused in S.C. 1038
of 2006 of the Additional Sessions (Fast Track III) Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. The above sessions case was instituted
upon the final report submitted by the DySP, CBCID, SIG No.1,
Thiruvananthapuram for the offences punishable under Sections
120 (B) and 489 B & C read with Section 34 of IPC against five
accused. Upon the suretyship of the appellant as well as the first
surety, the first accused was released on bail on executing a bond
for Rs.25,000/-. The first accused while on bail gone to gulf and
he is now absconding. Though the court issued NBW against the
3rd counter petitioner, who is the first accused, the same was
returned reporting that he has gone to gulf. Hence M.C. 108 of
2008 was registered and notices were issued to the counter
petitioners including the appellant. Though the first surety
appeared and sought time for producing the accused he did not
produce the accused. On the next posting date he was absent.
The appellant herein appeared before the court and she expressed
Crl. Appeal No. 322 of 2009
: 2 :
her inability to produce the accused. Under the above
circumstances, the court below directed that each of the sureties
shall pay penalty of Rs.15,000/-. It is the above order challenged
in this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor . The learned
counsel submitted that the appellant is a widow and she was
depending her elder son for her lively hood and the said son had
already expired and therefore she is not in a position to raise that
much amount. Thus, the counsel submitted that a lenient view
may be taken.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed
the petition and submitted that going by the facts and
circumstances involved in this case it cannot be said that
impugned order is either illegal or incorrect. Being a surety and
being mother of the first accused, the appellant is bound to abide
the conditions of the bond and to procure the presence of the
absconding accused. But the learned counsel submitted that the
absconding accused is still at gulf and appellant has no contact
with him. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant
is now at the age of 68 years and she is a widow. Considering the
Crl. Appeal No. 322 of 2009
: 3 :
circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the amount fixed
by the court below as penalty can be reduced and refixed as
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). Thus, the appellant is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty within a period of
one month from today. If the amount is not paid within the time
stipulated the court below can take coercive steps for realisation of
the penalty amount now refixed by this Court. Coercive steps, if
any, already taken, shall be deferred for a period of one month
from today.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE
kmd