This is an appeal instituted under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to impugn the order dated 17.09.2014 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda in M.C No.8 of 2014 in S.C No.142 of 2013. The two appellants herein had stood as sureties for the 2nd accused in S.C No.142 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakkuda. The accused therein was released on bail on executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum and were directed to appear before the court below till the end of the trial. But, in violation of the said condition in the bond, the said accused failed to appear before the court below and the sureties (appellants herein) failed to produce the accused and hence the bond was forfeited and the aforementioned M.C No.7 of 2014 was initiated. Opportunity to show cause as to why the bond amount should not be recovered and paid was given to the appellants and as they could not give any explanation, the court below as per the impugned order directed imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- each on the appellants. 2. It is this order that is challenged in the present appeal.
Crl.Appeal No.1263 of 2014 2
3. Heard Sri. T.N.Manoj, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. It is specifically pleaded in paragraph 2 of the memorandum of appeal of this case that the accused in obedience to the warrant of arrest issued against them had surrendered before the court below and an application to advance hearing of the case was made so as to advance the case from 30.10.2014 to 17.09.2014 and that the court below found the accused guilty of violation of the conditions of the bail bond and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- on the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. That the accused remitted the fine amount and the accused were thereafter discharged and were enlarged on bail as two new sureties produced by the accused. This averment in the appeal memorandum is not rebutted by the respondent State. As the accused persons have already been remanded and enlarge on bail and as he has also paid the fine amount, a lenient view can be taken in this case. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the Crl.Appeal stand allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge