Karnataka High Court
Avalappa N vs State By Bagalur Police on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.151 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
AVALAPPA N.
S/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NALLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANDIKAL HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA PIN CODE-562 104.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY BAGALUR POLICE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE PIN CODE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP) (PH)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
449(2) OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN
S.C.NO.15037/2019 DATED 11.10.2021 AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant is praying to set aside the order
dated 11.10.2021 passed by the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District in
S.C.No.15037/2019, whereby, a direction has been issued
to the District Commissioner, Chikkaballapura, to recover
the forfeited amount of the bail bond and surety bond, by
auctioning the property of the sureties.
2. The appellant is one of the surety holder to
accused No.1 by name Sri. Syed Waseem alias Waseem,
who is facing trial for offence punishable under Section
397 of IPC in S.C.No.15037/2019. The said accused along
with accused No.2 was enlarged on bail by this court, in
Crl.P.No.4188/2019 vide order dated 22.10.2019, subject
to executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety for likesum. The appellant herein executed surety
bond in respect of accused No.1 and filed surety affidavit
along with property documents and solvency certificate for
release of the accused. Subsequently, the accused
absconded and failed to appear before the trial Court
inspite of issuance of summons and non bailable warrant.
Therefore, the bail bond and surety bond was forfeited and
direction was issued to the District Commissioner,
Chikkaballapura, to recover the forfeited amount by
auctioning the properties of the sureties.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for
appellant is that trial Court has not given proper
opportunity to the appellant and without forfeiting the
surety bond has passed the order. The same cannot be
accepted, since the order sheet discloses that opportunity
was given and inspite of that, the appellant failed to secure
the presence of the accused before the Court. The
appellant has pleaded that he is not aware about the
whereabouts of the accused. It is pertinent to see that
accused No.1 is a resident of Govindapura, Nagavara main
road, Bangalore, and the appellant is a resident of
Nallapanahalli village in Chikkaballapura. Knowing fully
well that the accused is not a resident of Chikkaballapura
village, he has filed surety affidavit along with property
documents and executed a bond. Having stood as a surety
and executed the bond, the appellant has failed to secure
the presence of the accused. Hence, there is no illegality
passed by trial Court in forfeiting the surety bond and
directing to recover the forfeited amount by auctioning the
property of the appellant. However, considering that the
appellant is aged about 69 years, to meet the ends of
justice, it is just and proper to reduce the bond amount to
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and if the said
amount is deposited before the trial Court within a period
of six weeks from today, the learned Sessions Judge shall
issue necessary direction to the authorities. Until then the
operation of the impugned order shall be deferred.
With the above observation, Criminal Appeal is
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JY
