IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7705 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJU S/O LATE JAVARA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.90, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570014 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: B.S.GURUDATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU-570006 2. NASIR AHMED AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O PYAREJAN, NO.378 17TH CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, MYSURU-570004 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1) ---
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A UNDER SEC.446(3) OF CRPC IN S.C.NO.407/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DIST. AND S.J., MYSURU VIDE ORDER DATED 01.09.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWNG THE SAME AND CONSEQEUNTLY RECALL THE ATTACHMENT WARRANT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IN S.C.NO.407/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., MYSURE AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has sought for remission of the bond amount levied by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C.No.407/2014.
2. The petitioner herein offered surety for the release of the second respondent (accused No.4) in S.C.No.224/2012. The said accused No.4 having jumped bail and remained absconding, the learned Sessions Judge initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein to enforce the security bond. Petitioner having failed to secure the presence of the accused No.4, by the impugned order dated 01.09.2016, the application filed under section 446(3) of Cr.P.C., was dismissed and the Tahsildar was directed to execute the attachment warrant for recovery of the penalty amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. The trial court appears to have ordered for recovery of the entire bond amount of Rs.1,00,000/- mainly for the reason that the petitioner herein offered surety for accused No.4 who is said to be the proclaimed offender. But the impugned order does not disclose the basis on which the trial court has come to the said conclusion. Even before this court, no material is produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender in any other case other than the one in which the petitioner has offered surety.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made every conceivable efforts for securing the presence of accused No.4. He is an agriculturist and does not have the wherewithal to pay the penalty amount levied by the trial Court.
5. Having regard to the above circumstances, in my view, it would sub-serve the ends of justice if the petitioner is directed to pay a penalty of Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs.17,000/- is already deposited before the trial court. The petitioner shall deposit the remaining sum of Rs.13,000/- within four weeks from today.
Petition stands allowed in terms of the above order.
I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss