Muniraju vs State By Attibele Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 7624 Kant

                                           -1-
                                                       NC: 2023:KHC:39894
                                                   CRL.A No. 1824 of 2023




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                        BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1824 OF 2023
                BETWEEN:

                1.    MUNIRAJU
                      S/O RAMAIHA,
                      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
                      R/AT NEAR BAKERI,
                      MADAVARA,
                      BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
                      BANGALORE- 562162.
                                                             ...APPELLANT
                (BY SRI. RAJU C N., ADVOCATE)
                AND:

                1.    STATE BY ATTIBELE POLICE
                      BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
                      BANGALORE
                      REPRESENTED BY SPP,
Digitally             HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
signed by
SUMITHRA R            BANGALORE-560001.
                                                           ...RESPONDENT
Location:
High Court of   (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
Karnataka

                     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.449(2) OF CRPC PRAYING TO
                SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC III BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
                IN CRL.MISC.NO.248/2023 DATED 02.09.2023 AND ALLOW
                THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS.

                     THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
                THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    -2-
                                                    NC: 2023:KHC:39894
                                              CRL.A No. 1824 of 2023




                              JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent/State and perused the material on record.

2. The appellant who stood as surety for the

accused in Spl.C.No.304/2019 before the Court of

Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III,

Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru failed to secure the

presence of the said accused, as such the surety bond

came to be forfeited and notice was issued to the

appellant/surety holder.

3. The appellant preferred an application under

Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. against forfeiture of the bond,

which application was partly allowed by the learned

Sessions Judge and as against the surety bond of

Rs.1,00,000/-, he was directed to pay penalty of

Rs.50,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that

inspite of the best efforts, the appellant is unable to secure

NC: 2023:KHC:39894 CRL.A No. 1824 of 2023

the presence of the accused and for tracing the accused,

the appellant has spent huge amount. He therefore prays

to show further leniency and to reduce the penalty to 20%

of the bond amount.

5. Admittedly, the appellant stood as a surety to

the accused. The material on record reveal that the

accused was released on bail on execution of surety bond

of Rs.1,00,000/-. Subsequently, the accused absconded

and despite issuing proclamation warrant, he was not

traced and therefore, the surety bond was forfeited.

Further, the learned Sessions Judge has observed in the

order that surety holder did not appear after issuing

notice, on the other hand after issuing FLW and when the

Tahsildar was directed to enter the encumbrance in

column No.11 of RTC and with great difficulty his presence

was secured. It is further observed that he has not

explained as to what are the efforts he has made to trace

the accused.

NC: 2023:KHC:39894 CRL.A No. 1824 of 2023

6. Spl.C.No.304/2019 is registered against the

accused for the offences punishable under Section 366(A),

343, 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The

accused after he was released on bail has absconded and

he is not traced so far. It is the duty of the surety holder

to keep the accused present before the Court, failing which

the surety bond will be forfeited and the amount

mentioned in the bond has to be recovered as penalty.

7. The learned Sessions Judge has noted that in

the surety affidavit it is stated that the property is a

valuable land worth more than Rs.10,00,000/-. Further,

observing that the surety must have made some efforts in

tracing the accused, a lienant view was taken by directing

the appellant to deposit half of the surety amount.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is

suffering from age old ailments and he is an agriculturist.

8. In the above facts and circumstances, the

appellant is directed to pay penalty of Rs.40,000/- towards

forfeiture of bond amount and the impugned order dated

NC: 2023:KHC:39894 CRL.A No. 1824 of 2023

02.09.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.248/2023 is modified to

the said extent.

The appeal is disposed of.

I.A.No.1/2023 is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HB