High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePartly allowed; remanded to trial court for com...

CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases

Case / Petition Number:CRL.A Nos.1651/2023, 1652/2023 and 1654/2023 (connected cases)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. Somarajan
Judgment Date
2023-11-03
Court Decision / Holding
The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to afford the appellants an opportunity to apply under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. The parties are to appear before the trial court on 20/11/2023. All the appeals are allowed in part accordingly.
Final Disposition
Partly allowed; remanded to trial court for compliance with Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.; appeals disposed in part in light of remand.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Raju Yohannan
  • Joshwa John

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Jissmon A Kuriyakose
  • • K.R. Arun Krishnan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor
  • • Sanal P Raj

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court hears three criminal appeals (CRL.A Nos.1651/2023, 1652/2023 and 1654/2023) challenging the order/judgment in Crime No.495/2020 of Ettumanoor Police Station, Kottayam, and related MC Nos. 61/2022, 60/2022 and 62/2022 in SC 593/2021 of the Addl. District Court & Sessions Court - V, Kottayam. The appellants, Raju Yohannan and Joshwa John, contend that forfeiture of bail bonds under the Cr.P.C. must comply with Section 446(3), which requires the court to afford an opportunity to the party to apply for relief before forfeiture. The court underscores that Section 446(3) is a beneficial provision designed to safeguard rights, and a court cannot act mechanically; it must enlighten the parties about the remedies available and provide a concrete opportunity. It cites Valsan and Another v. State of Kerala and Sahadevan v. State of Kerala to illustrate the proper approach and to emphasize the need for substantial compliance with the mandate. The impugned order is found cryptic and lacking clear indication of any opportunity given to the appellants. Consequently, the court sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the trial court to afford the appellants a genuine opportunity to exercise relief under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. The parties are to appear on 20/11/2023; all appeals are allowed in part in light of this remand.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 446 Cr.P.C.Sub-section 3 of Section 446 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. is a beneficial provision requiring the court to afford an opportunity before forfeiture of bail bonds.
  • Courts must not act mechanically and should adopt a pragmatic approach to inform the parties about the benefit available under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.
  • Initial show cause notice before forfeiture may not fulfil the requirement of Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.
  • Legislative intent behind bail-forfeiture provisions is to safeguard the rights of the accused to obtain relief.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that subsection (3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial provision that mandates a clear opportunity to apply for relief before bail-bond forfeiture. The order passed by the trial court was cryptic and failed to expressly address the Section 446(3) entitlement, and an initial show-cause notice may be insufficient to meet the statutory requirement. They urged remand so the trial court could provide the required opportunity and conduct a proper consideration of relief under 446(3) Cr.P.C., relying on the decisions in Valsan and Sahadevan to support the proposition.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Valsan and Another v. State of Kerala2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2981; 2021 (4) KLT 716; 2021 (4) KHC 372PositiveCourt cites this authority to support the proposition that sub-section (3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial provision requiring an opportunity before forfeiture of bail bonds.
Sahadevan v. State of Kerala2017 KHC 981PositiveCited as part of the legal lineage leading to the position on Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. and opportunity to be afforded.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.A NO. 1651 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRIME NO.495/2020 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.62/2022 IN SC 593/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1RAJU YOHANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O YOHANNAN, VARAKUNNEL HOUSE, KURUMBANADAM KARA, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN - 686536 2JOSHWA JOHN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O JOHN ANJILIPARANIL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR, MANARCAD, PIN - 686019 BY ADVS. JISSMON A KURIAKOSE K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`PP SRI. SANAL P RAJ`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1652/2023, 1654/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 2 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.A NO. 1652 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRIME NO.495/2020 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE ``` ``` STATION, KOTTAYAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2023 IN M.C.NO.61/2022 IN SC 593/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 RAJU YOHANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O YOHANNAN VARAKUNNEL HOUSE, KURUMBANADAM KARA, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN - 686536`** - **`2 JOSHWA JOHN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O JOHN ANJILIPARANIL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR, MANARCAD, KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN - 686019`** ``` BY ADVS. JISSMON A KURIAKOSE K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`PP SRI SANAL P RAJ`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1651/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 3 ``` # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.A NO. 1654 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRIME NO.495/2020 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE ``` ``` STATION, KOTTAYAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.04.2023 IN M.C.60/2022 IN SC 593/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOTTAYAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT, KOTTAYAM ``` ## **`APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1RAJU YOHANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O YOHANNAN, VARAKUNNEL HOUSE, KURUMBANADAM KARA, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN - 686536 2JOSHWA JOHN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O JOHN ANJILIPARANIL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR, MANARCAD, PIN - 686019 BY ADVS. JISSMON A KURIAKOSE K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`PP SRI SANAL P RAJ`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1651/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 4 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Sub-section (3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. being a beneficial provision cast a duty on every court dealing with forfeiture of bail bond to afford an opportunity and to see that the benefit was availed of by the party concerned in letter and spirit. The court should not act mechanically, but should always adopt a pragmatic approach so as to enlighten the parties regarding the benefit that can be availed of by giving a specific opportunity. Failure to address the benefit under sub-section (3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. would amount to declining the benefit to the party concerned and would defeat the very purpose under that beneficial provision. Certainly, the duty cast upon the court to address sub-section(3) invariably in all cases is peremptory and cannot be avoided simply in a routine way. Substantial compliance of the requirement as mandated under sub- section (3) of the Act should be established and it must find a place in the order passed forfeiting the bail amount and imposition of penalty. A cryptic ``` ``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` order without addressing the benefit that can be extended under sub-section (3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained and it will go against the legislative intent while incorporating sub-section(3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. Initial show cause notice before forfeiting the bond amount may not be a sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. Earlier, this Court has laid down the legal position inValsan and Another v. State of Kerala [2021 SCC OnLine Ker 2981 : (2021) 4 KLT 716 : 2021 (4) KHC 372] by referring yet another decision of this Court in Sahadevan v. State of Kerala (2017 KHC 981). ``` ``` 2. It appears from the impugned order that it is not clear whether any opportunity was given to the appellants to apply under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.. The learned counsel for the appellants at this juncture pressed for a remand of the matter so as to enable the appellants under sub-section(3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. The impugned order hence will stand set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court so as to afford an opportunity to the appellants. The ``` ``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` parties shall appear before the trial court on 20/11/2023. ``` ``` All the appeals will stand allowed in part accordingly. ``` ``` Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE ``` msp ``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1652/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 Annexure2 ``` ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/04/2023 IN MC61/2022 IN S.C.NO.593/2021 PENDING IN THE FILES OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE V, TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL BOND DATED 22/02/2023 ``` ``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1654/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 ``` ``` Annexure2 ``` ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/04/2023 IN MC60/2022 IN S.C.NO.593/2021 PENDING IN THE FILES OF THE ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE V, KOTTAYAM TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL BOND FOR THE 1ST ACCUSED DATED 22/02/2023 ``` ``` CRL.A Nos.1651/2023 and connected cases ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1651/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 Annexure2 ``` ``` CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/04/2023 IN MC62/2022 IN S.C.NO.593/2021 PENDING IN THE FILES OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE V, KOTTAYAM TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL BOND DATED 22/02/2023 ```