Karnataka High Court
Basavaraju vs State By Hsr Layout Police ... on 20 December, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. BASAVARAJU
S/O DRUGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.178A
SANTHEKADURA VILLAGE
SHIMOGA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 562160
2. VENKATESH.N.V.
S/O LATE VENKATANARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.33-1
MALATHAHALLI, HALEGRAMA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 562 160.
3. K.G.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.117,
1ST CROSS HOSUR GRAMA
AYANUR VILLAGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK
SHIMOGA -562 160 ... APPELLANTS
[BY SRI.RAJU.C.N., ADVOCATE]
AND
STATE BY HSR LAYOUT POLICE
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
[BY SMT. LEENA C. SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP]
***
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
449(ii) CRPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.12.2019 PASSED BY THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-46), BENGALURU IN S.C. NO.
1022/2017 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is against the impugned order dated
26.12.2019 passed in S.C.No.1022/2017, on the file of the
Court of XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore
city.
2. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order
has directed the surety holders namely D.Basavaraju,
N.V.Venkatesh and K.G.Chandrashekaraiah, to deposit the
bond amount of `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only)
each as penalty within three weeks by way of Demand Draft
in the name of Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore.
3. As per the impugned order, the appellants stood
as surety for accused Nos.2 and 3, in connection with a case
registered in crime No.342/2016 of HSR Layout Police
Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 4,
5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 370
of Indian Penal Code. The accused were released on their
executing a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty thousand only) each with two sureties for likesum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. After committal of the
case, both the accused remained absent. Hence notices were
issued to the surety holders. Inspite of granting sufficient
time, the accused were not produced before the Court. Hence
the surety bond came to be forfeited.
4. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the
submissions made on behalf of the surety holders, was of the
view that the terms and conditions of the bond has been
violated. However, giving some relaxation of payment of bond
amount, a sum of `15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only)
was waived-off.
5. From the material on record it appears that
inspite of issuance of NBW against accused Nos.2 and 3, they
were not traced and the surety holders having stood as surety
to the said accused persons have failed to produce them
before the Court and therefore violated the terms of the
bond.
6. Learned Sessions Judge has observed in the order
that some of the persons are in the habit of offering surety
even to the accused who hails from different state etc., and
they stand as surety with fake and forged documents, due to
which number of cases are pending and causing extra burden
to the police to trace the accused and victim/sufferers are
awaiting for justice. It is also observed that the surety namely
N.V.Venkatesh in this case, has received notice in another
case in S.C.No.988/2018 of Chandra layout Police Station and
filed similar application to show leniency while imposing fine.
In the said case also, the accused is absconding.
7. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions
Judge, due to abscondance of the accused and failure on the
part of the surety holders to secure their presence inspite of
standing as surety to them, number of criminal cases are sent
to long pending register. In the case on hand since the surety
holders have violated the terms of the bond by not keeping
the presence of the accused persons before the Court, I do
not see any error in the Order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge.
8. Sri.Sateesh Chandra.K.V., learned counsel
appearing for the applicant in I.A.No.1/2021 has submitted
that the said applicant namely K.Mahesh, is a bonafide
purchaser of the property belonging to appellant No.3 namely
K.G.Chandrashekariah and now by virtue of impugned order
the property of the sureties has been directed to be attached
to remit the bond amount of `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five
thousand only) each. In the affidavit, it is stated that he is
ready to pay the fine amount instead of attaching the
property imposed by the Court on the surety holder,
K.G.Chandrashekariah.
9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that appellant No.3/K.G.Chandrashekariah, has not
stood as surety for accused Nos.2 and 3. However, order
sheet of the trial Court would show that separate applications
were filed by the surety holders under Section 446(3) of
Cr.P.C and even he was present before the trial Court.
10. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the view that there are no grounds made out to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge. However, it is open for the surety holder namely
K.G.Chandrashekariah, appellant No.3 to bring it to the notice
of the learned Sessions Judge by filing necessary application,
in case he has not stood as surety for the accused persons. In
that event, the learned Sessions Judge shall verify as to
whether he stood as a surety for the accused and pass
necessary order on that application.
ORDER
Criminal appeal is disposed of with the above
observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GVP
