This appeal is filed under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to impugn the order dated 27.12.2010 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, whereby the appellants have been directed to pay a penalty amount of Rs.10,000/- each. The appellants herein stood as sureties of the accused in Sessions Case No.45 of 2009 and the accused had secured bail on executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each. As the accused absconded violating the bail conditions, the appellants/sureties were served with notice by the court below requiring them to cause production of the accused and as they failed to produce the accused, the bond executed by the appellants was forfeited to Governement and they were served with show cause notice requiring them to show cause why the bond amount shall not be forfeited to Government. Later, the case was called on 27.11.2010 before the court below and as the appellants could not appear before the court on that day, the court below passed the impugned order directing to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/- each. It is this order under challenge in the present appeal. 2. Heard Sri. T.M.Abdul Latiff, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that despite their best attempts, appellants could not secure the production of the accused. It is pleaded in ground (B) of the appeal memorandum dated 25.03.2011 that the accused concerned in this case is a flower merchant and he was not in station and despite the earnest efforts the appellants could not trace out his presence. That ultimately on the basis of the search made by the appellants, the police was able to arrest the accused and produce him before the court below and the said court after detaining him in jail for one week granted bail and that the impugned order rendered on 27.12.2010 is liable to be interfered with.
4. These pleadings of the appellants in the appeal memorandum has not been rebutted by the respondent.
5. This Court on 30.03.2011 admitted this criminal appeal and ordered in Crl.M.A No.3010 of 2011 filed in this appeal that there will be stay of the operation of the impugned order herein.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants herein do not have sufficient means to pay off the penalty amount and taking into account the fact that the accused was subsequently arrested and was granted bail by the court below, this Court may take a lenient view and interfere with the impugned order.
7. In view of the averments in ground (B) of the appeal memorandum, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view as it is averred that the police was subsequently able to arrest the accused and thereafter detained in prison for one week and later granted bail by the court below in this case. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal could be allowed and accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside.
Crl.Appeal stands allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge