Siddaiah H S vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 4694 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:25316
                                                 CRL.A No. 1054 of 2023




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1054 OF 2023
            BETWEEN:
            SIDDAIAH H S
            S/O LATE SIDDAIAH,
            AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
            RESIDING AT D.S. HOSAHALLI,
            KAMBATHANAHALLI (POST)
            GULURU HOBLI,
            TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
                                                           ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI. A N RADHA KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)

            AND:
            STATE OF KARNATAKA
            BY TOWN POLICE, TUMKUR,
            REPRESENTED BY
Digitally
signed by   THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PANKAJA S
Location:
            HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH        BENGALURU-560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                                                ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

                   THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 449 CR.P.C PRAYING
            TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2022 PASSED BY THE
            LEARNED PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN
            SPL.CASE NO.15/2021 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY
            THE APPELLANT UNDER SEC.446(2) CR.PC AND REMIT THE BOND
            AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT.
                                     -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:25316
                                           CRL.A No. 1054 of 2023




      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                               JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - surety No.1 Under

Section 449 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed

on an application filed under Section 446(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru

(hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions Court') in Spl.Case

No.15/2021 seeking remission of the surety bond amount.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned High

Court Government Pleader for the State.

3. The case of the appellant - surety No.1 is that the accused

No.1 is said to have involved in the criminal case punishable under

the Narcotic-Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). When the accused No.1 was

in jail he has been granted bail by the Court and the appellant

herein had offered surety to accused No.1 and thereby the accused

No.1 was released on bail. Subsequently the accused No.1

remained absent for trial and absconded. Even though NBW has

been issued accused No.1 could not be secured. Therefore, notice

NC: 2023:KHC:25316 CRL.A No. 1054 of 2023

has been issued to the appellant - surety and the surety also tried

to secure the presence of accused No.1. Hence, the appellant -

surety No.1 filed an application under Section 446(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court seeking for

remission of the bond amount. The Sessions Court dismissed the

same and aggrieved by it the appellant - surety No.1 is before this

Court.

4. It is submitted that appellant - surety No.1 has given surety

to accused No.1 by executing a surety bond for Rs.2,00,000/- on

01.12.2020. Subsequently, the accused No.1 remained absent and

Non-bailable warrant was issued. As the accused No.1 was not

secured, notice was issued to the appellant - surety No.1. The

appellant has tried his best to secure the accused No.1 and

produce before the Court, as per the condition in the surety bond.

The appellant - surety No.1 is also said to be the resident of

Jodhpur, Rajasthan State. Due to the failure in securing the

presence of accused No.1, the appellant has filed an application

under Section 446(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking remission of the bond

amount.

NC: 2023:KHC:25316 CRL.A No. 1054 of 2023

5. The learned counsel for appellant - surety No.1 has relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mohammed Kunju & Another v. State of Karnataka reported in

1999(4) Crimes 320 (SC). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has granted remission of 1/5th of the bond amount; and the

accused was subsequently secured by the police by executing the

warrant. But, in the present case the accused No.1 has not been

secured by the police. The appellant herein has helped the

accused No.1 in getting him released on bail for the offence

punishable under Section 17(b) of the Act. Considering all the

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that

there is no evidence to prove that the appellant - surety No.1 has

helped the accused No.1 to escape from the clutches of law and

the surety offered by him to accused No.1 is bona fide. Hence, the

surety bond amount is liable to be reduced. Accordingly, I proceed

to pass the following -

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part.

ii. The impugned order dated 12.12.2022 passed by Prl.

District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Spl.Case

NC: 2023:KHC:25316 CRL.A No. 1054 of 2023

No.15/2021 is hereby set aside. The application is

allowed in part.

iii. The appellant - surety No.1 is directed to deposit

Rs.50,000/- towards the surety bond amount within a

week before the Sessions Court from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HNM