1. The order dated 23.09.2025 in M.C. No.4/2025 in S.C. No.426/2021 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Palakkad, imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.50,000/- each against the appellants herein, who are the sureties for the accused in the said case is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, though in terms of the bail bond, the amount forfeited was Rs.1 Lakh each, the Special Court ordered penalty to the tune of Rs.50,000/- each against the appellants/sureties and the same is on the higher side as far as the appellants are concerned. It is also submitted that, the appellants could produce the accused before the Court, if sufficient time would be granted by setting aside the impugned order. Otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, some leniency may be shown in the matter of fine in the interest of justice and the appellants are ready to deposit Rs.25,000/- each.

4. In the instant case, bail bond was forfeited because of non appearance and abscondence of the accused before the Sessions Court after he was released on bail. It is noticed that, there is a wrong understanding prevailing, holding the view that, even after forfeiture of bonds, the sureties could wriggle out from the liability of paying penalty by producing the accused before the Court after forfeiture of the bail bond. It is well settled law that, when bail bond was forfeited due to non-appearance of the accused before the Court, sureties have no option to produce the accused and wriggle out from the liability of paying penalty. This legal position was upheld by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Thundichi and Another v. State of Kerala [2009 KHC 1046] and it was held that, when bail bond was forfeited, sureties are bound to pay the bond amount as penalty. Therefore, the appellants herein cannot escape from the liability of paying penalty by subsequent production of the accused and they are bound to pay the bond amount, though the Courts have power fo show leniency in the matter of reducing bond amount.

5. Here, the learned Sessions Judge imposed only 50% of the fine amount in a case, where the accused alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the trial of the case has been disrupted. Therefore, the order imposing penalty is only to be justified.

6. Coming to the quantum of fine, I am inclined to reduce the fine amount to the tune of Rs.30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each, with direction to the appellants to pay the same, within a period of three weeks i.e. on or before 30.01.2026. If the reduced fine, will not be paid as directed before 30.01.2026, the appellants are bound to pay the entire fine amount, as per the impugned order, without fail.

                  Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.