Judgment : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2009 in M.C.No.45/2009 in S.C.No.1454/2008 of Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1st counter petitioner before the court below has come up in appeal. 2. The appellant along with one Lekshmanan stood as surety for the accused who jumped bail. Proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated and on failure of the sureties to produce the accused or to show cause why penalty should not be imposed, the impugned order was passed whereby each of the sureties was directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- as penalty. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that the penalty imposed is on the high side and the accused had already surrendered and is undergoing sentence. In the light of the said fact, it is prayed that some lenient view may be taken. 4. Taking note of the fact that subsequently the accused had surrendered and stood trial, it is only proper that a lenient view is taken in the matter. After having given anxious consideration to various aspects, it is felt that the penalty imposed is on the high side. Therefore, the imposition of penalty in the order dated 27.08.2009 as far as the appellant is concerned is set aside and instead she is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only within a period of one month from today.