Karnataka High Court
B Ajjappa @ Ajjanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 July, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1095 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1. B. AJJAPPA @ AJJANNA
S/O. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O. DOOR NO.106, MANAGI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
2. N. MANJAPPA @ MANJAPPA
S/O. LATE NANDYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O. MALLENAHALLI ROAD,
A.K. COLONY, ATTIGERE VILLAGE,
MAYAKONDA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 002. ... APPELLANTS
[BY SRI. SHIVAKUMARAPPA T.C., ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE]
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIKKAJAJUR POLICE,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR BEEDI,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP]
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 449
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHITRADURGA IN CRL.MISC. NO.574/2020 DATED 28.01.2021.
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned High Court Government Pleader takes
notice for respondent/State.
2. The appellants are before this Court in this
appeal filed under Section 449 of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in
Crl.Misc. No.574/2020, whereby the learned Sessions
Judge has directed them to deposit a fine amount of
`20,000/- each, for failing to secure the presence of the
accused for whom they stood as surety.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
appellant that the accused has been secured and
therefore imposition of penalty may be waived. He
submits that the appellants are poor agriculturists and
daily wagers and their family is solely depending on their
income for their livelihood. He therefore seeks to take a
lenient view in the matter.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
opposed the said submission of the learned counsel for
appellant and sought to reject the appeal, contending
that the trial Court has already taken a lenient view by
reducing the amount.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellants
executed security bonds for `1,00,000/- each to the
accused in S.C. No.57/2019, pending on the file of the
Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga. Since the accused remained absent and the
appellants failed in their duty to secure his presence, the
bail bond of the accused was forfeited and proceedings
were initiated against the appellants namely the surety
holders. A separate Criminal Miscellaneous case was
registered. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated
28.01.2021 directed the surety holders to deposit a fine
of `20,000/- each.
6. The material on record would disclose that the
accused was secured under NBW and thereafter he was
sent to judicial custody. The forfeiture of bond would
entail the penalty against each surety. The imposition of
penalty is within the discretion of the Court. Such
discretion must be exercised judicially. In the case on
hand, considering that now the accused has been
secured and also keeping in view the submission made
by the learned counsel for appellants, this Court deems it
fit to impose a fine amount of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) each, which shall serve the ends of
justice. Hence, the following
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed.
The order dated 28.01.2021 passed in Criminal
Misc. No.574/2020 by the learned I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is modified and the
appellants/surety holders are directed to pay a fine
amount of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each,
subject to payment of the said amount within a period of
10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
I.A. No.1/2022 is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB/-
