Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Meenakshikutty vs State Of Kerala on 20 March, 2009 cites

Usman vs State Of Kerala on 29 March, 2005

In Usman v. State of Kerala, this Court has held that the bond has to be forfeited by the person who executes the bond and not by court and no power is given to a court to forfeit a bond as if forfeiture is the outcome of the court's order. In the above decision it is further held that mere non-appearance before court due to reasons beyond a person's control will not be sufficient for any person to incur a penalty.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 13 - K Hema - Full Document

S. Rajan vs State Of Kerala And Another on 29 July, 1992

In Rajan v. State of Kerala, (cited supra) this court has held that it is only in cases where there is wilful default on the part of accused to appear in court, forfeiture of bond will follow and penalty will incur. As indicated above, the facts which leading to the issuance of the CRL. A.397/09 -:4:- impugned order are beyond dispute. Originally, the case was pending before the court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Court No.II. But on 20.1.2009, there was no sitting in that court as the presiding officer has already retired. According to the counsel, when he contacted the office of Court No.II, he was informed that there was no sitting. In this juncture, it has to be remembered that the appellant is a lady, hailing from Malappuram District and on all previous posting dates, she was adequately represented through her counsel and there was no occasion of taking any coercive steps against her laches or negligence. It is also relevant to note that on the basis of information gathered by the counsel for the appellant, he had also not appeared before the court and he had no idea that the case will be called in Court No.1, especially, in this case, none of the accused is in custody. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that no notice was given regarding the calling upon the case in Court No.II, is not controverted by the CBI. In the above factual scenario, I am of the opinion that the absence of the appellant/accused was not wilful and there is no material to come into a contra conclusion. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is liable to set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 178 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1