Karnataka High Court
Captain William Anoop Nicodemus vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7096/2021
BETWEEN:
CAPTAIN WILLIAM ANOOP NICODEMUS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE MR.DANIEL RAJ MOHAN NICODEMUS
R/O. G1104, TOWER-3, DAFFODILS BLOCK,
ADARSH PALM RETREAT
DEVARABESINAHALLI, BELLANDUR,
BENGALURU-560 103. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RATTIHALLI GEETA VEERANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATON-560 088,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(1)(b) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE HONOURABLE LIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN SPL.C.C.NO.416/2019,
DATED 13.01.2020.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
'THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner invoking
Section 439(1)(b) praying this Court to modify the order dated
13.01.2020 passed in Spl.C.C.No.416/2019, wherein the Trial
Judge, on an application filed by the petitioner herein under
Section 446 of Cr.P.C., prayed the Court to reduce the forfeited
bond amount. The Trial Judge, having considered the proviso
under Section 446 of Cr.P.C., reduced the bond amount to 50%
i.e., out of Rs.50,000/-, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was ordered
to be paid. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the Trial Court has committed an error
in passing such an order. When the petitioner was enlarged on
bail, he could not appear before the Trial Court and he became
sick and was unable to attend the Court. Subsequently, he
himself voluntarily appeared before the Court and he was taken
to custody and thereafter, the Court ordered to pay the entire
bond amount of Rs.50,000/- which was forfeited. Subsequently,
the Court allowed the application reducing the bond amount to
Rs.25,000/- and released him on bail, on his executing fresh
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in
support of her argument, relied upon the judgment of this Court
in the case of SRI MATTE MANJUNATHA VS. STATE BY
HOSADURGA P.S. reported in 2017 (1) KAR. L.R. 33, wherein
it is observed that, steps to be taken under Sections 446 and
446-A of Cr.P.C. being different, amalgamating both provisions is
foreign to the procedure contemplated by the Code, hence, the
impugned order is erroneous and illegal and set aside the order
passed by the Trial Judge. Hence, she prayed this Court to set
aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State would submit that in the
case on hand, the accused did not appear before the Court.
Hence, the bail bond was forfeited and warrant was issued.
Subsequently, the petitioner appeared and he was taken to
custody and thereafter, only at the instance of the petitioner, an
application is filed under Section 446(3) to reduce the bond
amount. Hence, the Trial Judge reduced the bond amount from
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- which was forfeited. Now, the
petitioner has again approached this Court to set aside the said
order.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute
that this petitioner was enlarged on bail earlier and
subsequently, he did not appear before the Trial Court and bail
bond was forfeited. Subsequently, he was taken to custody,
when he voluntarily appeared before the Court. Thereafter, an
application was filed to enlarged him on bail. Having considered
the order passed by the Trial Court while granting bail, fresh
condition was imposed, wherein, specific order is passed to
execute fresh personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
solvent surety. The other conditions are to appear before the
Court on all dates of hearing and co-operate with the trial and
not to threaten the prosecution witnesses. While enlarging him
on bail invoking Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on 14.01.2020, no such
condition was imposed to pay the bond amount and the order
impugned was passed on 13.01.2020. On perusal of the order
sheet, when an application is filed invoking Section 446 of
Cr.P.C. by the petitioner himself, an order is passed and the
same is passed after forfeiting the bond amount and the Trial
Court, reduced the bond amount to 50% i.e., Rs.25,000/-
entertaining the application filed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.
When the petitioner himself has approached the Trial Court
invoking Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. to reduce the amount, the
Trial Judge has rightly considered the case of the petitioner and
reduced the amount to 50% i.e., Rs.25,000/-.
7. When such being the factual aspects of the case, the
order cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
applicable to the case on hand since, this Court has held that
procedure has to be followed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. In
the case on hand, the procedure is followed, when an application
was filed by the petitioner himself invoking Section 446(3) of
Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has applied its mind and even shown
lenience in reducing the amount from Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.25,000/-. When such being the factual aspects of the case
and order has been passed and followed the procedure as per
proviso under Section 446 of Cr.P.C., I do not find any error
committed by the Trial Court and the question of reducing the
amount does not arise once again, as contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
