Sri Surendra vs The State

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—This is an appeal challenging the order of penalty passed by the Trial Court by forfeiting the surety bond of the appellant offered by him to accused No. 1 in Session Case No. 118/2009 pending on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mangalore. The facts reveal that appellant offered himself as a surety for the appearance of accused No. 1 in the Court below, wherein the first accused and other accused were facing a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. In the subsequent stage, accused No. 1 remained absent and therefore, notice was issued to the appellant, but he did not produce the accused before the Court below. It is in these circumstances, that the Trial Court has forfeited the surety bond and directed the appellant to pay penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of Trial Court, the present appeal is filed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also learned High Court Government Pleader.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was incurred as expenses to trace the accused and despite his efforts, accused is not found. Therefore, he submits that some leniency may be shown by reducing penalty as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, I am of the opinion that penalty ordered by the Trial Court has to be reduced to Rs. 15,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of learned Sessions Judge impugned in this appeal, the penalty ordered at Rs. 20,000/- is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- and the appellant shall pay or deposit the same before the Court below.