Karnataka High Court
Vijay S Alias Chinnu vs State By Special Executive Magistrate on 28 October, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42912
CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1554 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
VIJAY S @ CHINNU
S/O LATE SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/A NO. 13, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
BYLASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
(IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
ALSO R/AT NO.54,
KAVERAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
BYRASANDRA,
JAYANAGAR 1st PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 012.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by (BY SRI PRASANNA RAO R., ADVOCATE)
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S AND:
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 1. STATE BY SPECIAL
EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE
DCP WEST DIVISION,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. MADHU D S.,
PSI KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42912
CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU 560001.
3. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON,
PARAPPANNA AGRAHARA,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438
R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.09.2025, PASSED
BY THE HONBLE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, DCP WEST
DIVISION, BENGLURU CITY IN MAG CASE NO.41/2025. B.
CONSEQUENTLY PRAYS TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FROM
JUDICIAL CUSTODY WITH A DIRECTION TO 3RD RESPONDENT
IN MAG CASE NO.41/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE
SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, DCP WEST DIVISION,
BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42912
CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 04.09.2025 passed by Special
Executive Magistrate, DCP West Division, Bengaluru City, in
Case no.CRM/MAG/41/DCP(W)/2025, this revision petition is
filed.
2. Sri Prasanna Rao R., learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that on 28.01.2025 a PAR Case no.1/2025 was
registered against petitioner on ground that petitioner was a
"B" Rowdy-sheeter involved in various cases of murder,
attempt to murder etc., and categorized as a habitual offender.
On 29.01.2025, petitioner appeared before respondent no.1
and furnished bond for Rs.1,00,000/- in default of keeping good
behavior.
3. On 28.03.2025, Crime no.65/2025 was registered
by Kalasipalya Police Station for offences under Sections 118
(1), 352, 115 (2) and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
('BNS', for short). On 19.05.2025, Crime no.83/2025 was
registered by V.V. Puram Police Station for offences under
Sections 118 (1), 351(1), 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of BNS. In
both said cases, petitioner was arrayed as an accused.
NC: 2025:KHC:42912
HC-KAR
4. Alleging violation of condition of bond by petitioner,
PSI, Kalasipalya Police Station filed application under Section
141 (1) (b) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
('BNSS', for short). On 04.09.2025, respondent no.1 passed
impugned order for forfeiture of bond amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,
directing petitioner to pay same and in default to recover same
by proceeding against his properties, apart from ordering for
detention of petitioner in judicial custody till remainder of bond
period i.e. until 28.01.2026. Aggrieved thereby, present
revision petition was filed.
5. It was submitted that impugned order was passed
in violation of principles of natural justice as petitioner was not
afforded adequate opportunity. It was further submitted, no
reasons were assigned for dispensing with procedure
contemplated under Sections 134 and 136 of BNSS, calling for
interference by this Court.
6. It was submitted, subsequent crimes were
registered against petitioner by persons inimical to petitioner
with intention to subject him to detention. Such being case,
submitted order for proceeding against petitioner's properties in
NC: 2025:KHC:42912
HC-KAR
default of payment of bond amount was excessively harsh and
prayed for allowing petition.
7. On other hand, Smt.Anitha Girish N., learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondents - State opposed
petition. Admittedly, petitioner had involved himself in criminal
activities despite giving bond for good conduct. In view of
above, passing of impugned order by respondent no.1 was in
tune with provisions of Section 141 of BNSS and sought
dismissal.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
order.
9. This revision is against an order forfeiting bond
amount on ground of violation with condition in bond.
10. There is no dispute that on 28.01.2025 petitioner
had tendered bond for Rs.1,00,000/- before respondent no.1,
for good behaviour in Case no.CRM/MAG/41/DCP(W)/2025.
There is also no dispute about registration of Crime no.65/2025
by Kalasipalya Police Station and Crime no.83/2025 by V.V.
NC: 2025:KHC:42912
HC-KAR
Puram Police Station during period of undertaking, which
amounted to violation of condition in bond.
11. Though, respondent no.1 has resorted to Section
141 (1) (b) of BNSS to order forfeiture of bond amount and for
imprisonment till expiry of period of bond, Section 142 (9) of
BNSS empowers this Court to cancel or vary such conditions in
bond for sufficient reasons.
12. Admittedly, order of forfeiture of bond is required to
be preceded by an enquiry affording opportunity. Though notice
appears to have been given, it is recorded by respondent no.1
that petitioner failed to file explanation and proceeded to pass
impugned order. Thus there appears substance in petitioner's
contention about lack of adequate opportunity.
13. Apart from above, order for forfeiture of Bond
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and detention of petitioner for
remainder of period of bond appears to be excessively harsh,
calling for invocation of Section 142 (9) of BNSS to modify
conditions of bond as would secure ends of justice.
NC: 2025:KHC:42912
HC-KAR
14. Same would be in tune with ratio laid down by High
Court of Bombay in Balraj S. Kapoor v. State of Bombay,
reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 365 and High Court of
Rajasthan in Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in
1982 Crl.L.J. 2333, which have held that Court can remit a
portion of penalty invoking its discretionary power under
Section 514 (5) of 1898 Code (corresponding to Section
446(3) of CrPC, 1973 and Section 142 of BNSS) so long as
payment of any portion of penalty remains unenforced.
15. In view of above legal position, Revision Petition is
allowed, order for detention of petitioner for violation of
condition with bond for good behavior furnished in Case
no.CRM/MAG/41/DCP(W)/2025 on file of respondent no.1 is
modified and reduced to forfeiture of Rs.30,000/- and
furnishing of personal bond for like sum before respondent no.2
for remainder of bond period.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
