Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is by two persons, who stood as sureties, by executing bonds for the bail granted to accused No.10 in Sessions Case No.459 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Session, Thrissur.
2. Accused No.10 was released on bail and the appellants had executed bonds for `20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each. The sessions case in which the said accused person is involved is one in respect of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Since the said 10th accused and the 4th accused were absconding, the case against them were split up and re-filed as Sessions Case No.225 of 2009. The case against the other accused persons were proceeded with. That ended in conviction and sentence. Still, the 10th accused remained absconding. The bonds executed by the appellants were forfeited and notices were issued to them enabling them to produce the accused before the court. The appellants entered appearance and sought adjournment to produce the 10th accused. More than one opportunity were given. Yet, accused No.10 was not produced. Before the court below, the appellants prayed for leniency in the question of penalty. The court below held that on the circumstances of the case, it is satisfied that the entire bond amount has to be imposed as penalty.
3. In support of this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that accused No.10 was in jail for more than a year and a lenient view may be taken. The facts relating to grant of bail, the conditions imposed, etc. are not in dispute.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is no circumstance, whatsoever, to reduce the terms of the impugned order and that this appeal against the impugned order dated 14.01.2010 was taken on file after condoning the delay of 240 days, and from the time the appeal was admitted, the appellants are enjoying an order of stay on condition that each of them deposit `10,000/- before the court concerned. With the passage of time, there is no reason to consider any further modification, it is argued.
5. In the light of the facts and circumstances noted above and in view of the fact that accused No.10 continued to abscond, we do not find any jurisdictional infirmity or illegality in the Court of Session having imposed the penalty to the extent of the entire bond amount. The direction that each of the appellants herein have to pay penalty of `20,000/- and that they are not entitled to any remission from the bond amount is only to be sustained, particularly because the said order has been issued by the Court of Session on it having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the matter involved. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the order impugned. This criminal appeal fails.
In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE) jg