High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 08 KL CK 0119

S.M. Muhammed Kunhi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 11 August 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 595 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 337 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

Appellants were sureties of the 19th accused in C.C.No.2/2012 on the files of the Special Judge SPE/CBI-II, Ernakulam.

2.

Since the sureties failed to produce the 19th accused, non-bailable warrants were issued on 13.12.2019 after forfeiting the bond. Thereafter the accused was arrested on 15.12.2020 and he was granted bail on 18.12.2020 through fresh sureties. In the meantime, the learned Special Judge had initiated proceedings against the sureties of the 19th accused for their failure to produce the accused when called upon and issued a distress warrant. By the impugned order dated 12.07.2022, the learned Special Judge imposed the entire bond amount as penalty on both the sureties.

3.

Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Special Court failed to consider that it is not necessary in every case to impose the entire quantum of the bond executed, as the penalty. The court ought to have exercised its discretion, at least regarding the quantum.

4.

I have heard Sri.Sreelal N.Warrier, the learned Standing Counsel for CBI as well.

5.

Though the bond executed by the appellants was for Rs.2,00,000/- each, it is conceded that the accused was arrested on 15.12.2020 and was produced before the court, and has been released on execution of a fresh bail bond on 18.12.2020. The failure of the appellants to produce the accused, despite notice, has to visit them necessarily with a penalty. However, considering the fact that the accused was subsequently arrested based on the information provided by the sureties/appellants themselves, I am of the view that the quantum of Rs.2,00,000/- each is too excessive and harsh. A lenient view can be adopted in the circumstances.

6.

Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- each would be a sufficient penalty.

7.

Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part, while the penalty imposed upon the appellants is confirmed, the quantum shall stand reduced to Rs.50,000/- each [Rupees Fifty thousand only].

The  appeal is allowed in part.