Sri. C. M. Rajappa vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12122 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1316 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Sri C.M. Rajappa
S/o. Late Chikkamuniyapp a
Aged about 65 years
R/at Chakarasanahalli Village
Narasap ura Hobli
Kolar Taluk and District-563101
                                             ...Appellant
(By Sri S. Visweswaraiah, Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka
By Bang arpet Police Station
Kolar District-563114
                                          ...Respondent
(By Sri K. Nag eshwarapp a, HCGP)

     This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 449
(ii) of Cr.P.C. praying to set asid e the impugned order
by allowing app lication filed by the appellant under
Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. by allowing the app eal in
Crl.Misc.No.255/2021 dated 29.04.2022 on the file of
the Hon'ble III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kolar (Sitting at KGF).

     This Criminal Appeal coming on for orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:
                           :: 2 ::


                        JUDGMENT

Heard the appellant's counsel and the learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent-

State.

2. I.A.No.2/2022 is filed seeking to condone

delay of 22 days in filing the appeal. For the

reason that sufficient cause is shown for the delay.

I.A.No.2/2022 is allowed and delay is condoned.

This appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. The appellant has challenged the order

dated 29.04.2022, passed by the III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Kolar sitting at KGF in

Crl.Misc.No.255/2021, rejecting the appellant's

application under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C., filed

in connection with S.C.No.30/2020.

4. The appellant stood as surety for accused

No.2 and since the accused did not appear before

the court, surety bond was forfeited. The :: 3 ::

appellant made an application seeking remission of

the bond amount and it was rejected.

5. In a similar circumstance, this court

while deciding Crl.A.No.1014/2022, pertaining to

the same accused remission of bond amount was

given to surety by name Chinnanna. For the same

reasons remission can be granted in respect of

bond executed by the appellant.

6. The appellant was directed to execute a

bond for Rs.2,00,000/- and in view of the reasons

stated above, remission is granted and the

appellant is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-

within three months from today. Appeal is thus

partly allowed.

I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for

consideration. It stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE Kmv/-