Karnataka High Court
Rajegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.250 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
RAJEGOWDA
S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT KELLURU VILLAGE,
RAVANDRURU HOBLI,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU - 560 086. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT RAKSHA KEERTHANA K., ADVOCATE
FOR SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
'AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
06.04.2018 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1650/2017, PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU AND
DIRECTED TO REFUND THE DEPOSITED AMOUNT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts
notice for the respondent-State.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant under
Section 449 of Cr.P.C. for releasing the bond amount by
setting aside the order passed by the trial Court in
Crl.Misc.No.1050/2017 dated 17.03.2018 issuing FLW for
Rs.4,00,000/- and the same was said to be deposited by
the appellant.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent-State.
4. The case of the appellant is that the appellant
was PW.7 in C.C.No.105/2018 where the Bettadapura
Police registered a case against accused Nos.1 and 2 for
the offence punishable under section 379 read with Section
34 of IPC and Section 21(1) of the MMDR Act. The tractor
and trailer belong to this petitioner who was involved in
the crime which was seized by the Authorities and the
petitioner is said to have filed an application under Section
451 of Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed and the vehicle
was released to the interim custody of the Police with a
condition not to alienate and not to change the identity of
the tractor until disposal of the case. It appears that the
appellant has shown the property by violating the condition
of the Court during the trial. However, in the criminal case,
the accused persons were acquitted. The Magistrate has
passed an order under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. making the
interim custody of the vehicle as absolute to PW.7.
Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section
446 of Cr.P.C. for reducing the bond amount for remission
and the same was rejected. Hence, the appellant is before
this Court.
5. Having heard the arguments on both the sides
and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,
when the main matter has been ended in acquittal and
interim custody of the vehicle made as absolute, the trial
Court is not correct in collecting the entire amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- for violation of the condition of the release
order. Of course, the vehicle was sold by the appellant by
violation of the conditions during the trial. However in the
finality, the interim custody was made absolute. Such
being the case, the trial Court ought to have shown
concession by way of remission under Section 446(3) of
Cr.P.C.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case in
the case of MOHAMMED KUNJU AND ANOTHER v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (1999) 8 SCC
660, has held that if the accused violated the conditions
and forfeited the bond, the Court has ordered to remit
20% to the State instead of 100%. Such being the case,
I am of the view that the order of trial Court is liable to be
set aside and remission shall be given to the appellant on
20% of the bond amount which shall be deposited to the
Court and remaining amount is directed to be released to
the appellant with due identification.
7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GBB
