IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1298 of 2009() ---------------------------------- MC 42/2002 IN SC.84/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. PAIKARATHODI AHAMMED KABEER, S/O.VEERANKUTTY, ANTHIYOORKUNNU, PULIKKAL AMSOM, ERNAD TALUK. 2. VAYALIL KOODAMPOYIL ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MOIDEEN, KAKKAD AMSOM, KARASSEERRI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. Appeal NO. 1298 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order in M.C.42/02 in S.C.84/02 of the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The appellants were sureties for the third accused who stood charge sheeted for the offences u/Ss. 366(A) and 376(g) of IPC and other provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They have executed a bond for Rs.15,000/- each for the release of the accused and later the accused violated the terms of the conditions of bond and so proceedings were initiated against the sureties. They neither produced the accused nor did give any valid explanation. The Court forfeited the bond and levied a penalty of Rs.15,000/- each. A perusal of the order would reveal that on account of the non presence of the third accused trial of serious offences like 366(A) and 376(g) got delayed. Appellants were not able to give any reasonable explanation. The Court also found that in that particular Crl.A. 1298 OF 2009 -2- station it has become a habit not to appear before the Court and the accused are absconding in very many cases. The Court also found it necessary to impose a maximum penalty to inculcate discipline. I feel the observations and the decisions rendered by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely in order and when a person undertakes to produce an accused in criminal cases there is a duty cast upon him and all the more when the offence involved is of kidnapping and gang rape. I do not want to show any leniency in the matter therefore the Crl.Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-