Karnataka High Court
Rathnamma vs State By Excise Inspector on 3 April, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13715
CRL.A No. 120 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
RATHNAMMA,
W/O YALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VADDERAHALLI POST,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU - 562 162.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY EXCISE INSPECTOR,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
Digitally REPRESENTED BY SPP
signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LAKSHMI
T AT BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
High Court (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)
of
Karnataka THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.449(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.141/2023 DATED 05.10.2023 AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13715
CRL.A No. 120 of 2024
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by one of the surety holder
of the accused in Special Case No.477/2022 pending
before the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Tumakur.
2. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated
05.10.2023 in Crl.Misc No.141/2023 has rejected the
application filed by the appellant herein under Section
446(3) of Cr.P.C, which is assailed in this appeal.
3. Heard both sides and perused the material on
record.
4. The appellant and another stood as sureties for
the accused in Crime No.62/2021-22 registered by the
Excise Inspector, Tumakur. The said accused absconded
and the surety holders were unable to secure his presence
before the Court. Hence, the Court below proceeded to
recover the bond amount from the surety holders and
NC: 2024:KHC:13715
rejected their applications on the ground that the surety
holder stood surety for the accused, who was involved in
the heinous offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii)
(B) and 8C of the NDPS Act and even after giving sufficient
opportunities they have not traced the accused.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that while enlarging the accused on bail, he
was directed to execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties. Hence, the said surety
bond was in respect of two sureties and therefore, each of
the surety holder is not bound to pay an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/-. He has contended that the surety holder is
suffering from age old ailments and the property given as
surety is her only property which she owns and therefore,
prayed to take a lenient view.
6. Crime No.62/2021-22 was registered by the
excise police against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b), 20(ii)(B) of NDPS
NC: 2024:KHC:13715
Act. He was enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal
Petition No.3984/2022 vide order dated 27.05.2022, on
executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with
two local sureties for the likesum for the satisfaction of the
Jurisdiction Court etc.
7. The appellant is one of the surety holder who
stood as surety for the accused undertaking to abide by
the terms and conditions. The contention that the bond
amount is in respect of both the sureties together, cannot
be accepted. When such a condition is imposed, both the
sureties are required to undertake to abide by the terms
separately, in respect of the bond amount. It is not in
dispute that the accused has absconded and in spite of
issuance of proclamation warrant and attachment warrant,
which was not executed upon the accused, he is untraced.
The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while
rejecting the application filed under Section 446(3) of
Cr.P.C cannot be held to be illegal or perverse. The
appellant has voluntarily stood has surety for the accused,
NC: 2024:KHC:13715
in spite of knowing that the accused is from a different
state. However, considering that the appellant is a woman,
aged about 62 years, the fine amount can be reduced by
directing the appellant to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only). To that extent, the impugned
order is modified. If the fine amount is not deposited
within four weeks, the Court below shall proceed in
accordance with law. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is
disposed of.
I.A.No.1/2024 is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
KBM
