IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.933/2017 BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED HANEEF S/O LATE SUFI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BLOCK NO.3, HILL ROAD MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-573 453.
2. ABDUL LATHIF M.E. S/O IDDINABBA M.A. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BLOCK NO.24, UKKUDA ROAD AZAD NAGAR, MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT-573 453.
(BY SRI. B.LETHIF, ADVOCATE) AND:
… APPELLANTS STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION KODAGU DISTRICT REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 449 (ii) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 IN CRL. MISC.NO.185/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., KODAGU- MADIKERI AGAINST THE APPELLANTS.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard Sri B.Lethif, learned Advocate appearing for appellants and learned HCGP appearing on behalf of respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Appellants who had executed surety on behalf of accused No.3 at the time of accused No.3 being enlarged on bail in S.C.No.15/2013 filed an application under Section 446 Cr.P.C. for reducing the bond amount contending interalia that they had stood surety for accused No.3 and had executed surety bond for ` 50,000/- each and accused No.3 was attending the Court regularly up to 2016 and when he came to be convicted in a cheque bounce case, he has been absconding since then and despite their best efforts to secure accused No.3, he could not be traced. It was also contended on account of the forfeiture of the bail bond of accused No.3, they have been directed to pay bond amount of ` 50,000/- and they being coolies, are not in a position to pay said amount and it is also contended that they have aged parents and school going children to be taken care of. Hence, they sought for reduction of bond amount.
3. Jurisdictional Sessions Court, after considering the contentions raised by appellants and after hearing learned HCGP appearing for State, by order dated 16.02.2017 allowed the application partly and reduced the penalty amount to ` 20,000/- each instead of bond amount of ` 50,000/- each.
4. It is the contention of Sri Lethif, learned Advocate appearing for appellants that trial Court erred in not considering the fact that bond amount could have been reduced by 1/5th as held by Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMED KUNJU AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2000 CRL.L.J. 165 and contends that imposing penalty for the surety is not a penal provision and it is a precautionary provision to ensure the presence of accused on all the dates of hearing and it is also contended that despite all efforts made by appellants to secure the presence of accused No.3 before jurisdictional Court, they could not secure his presence and as such, property belonging to them had been erroneously attached and said property being the residential property in which they are residing with minor children and aged parents and eking out their livelihood by carrying on coolie work and if it is sold they would be on streets. Hence, they contend that trial Court ought to have reduced the bond amount to 1/5th of the amount offered by them while executing the bond at the time when accused No.3 was enlarged on bail.
5. Learned SPP appearing for the State would support the order under challenge.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would disclose that co-ordinate Bench in the case of K.S.SHIVANNA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA, TIPTUR TOWN POLICE reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1065 had taken note of the fact that statistics revealed that in large number of cases accused persons being unavailable once they were let on bail and thereafter sureties would approach the Court contending that despite their best efforts, such accused person is not traceable and it would result in trial not progressing and as a consequence of which back log would pile up.
It is also held that, stringent steps are required to be taken. Thus, taking totality of circumstances of this case it is noticed that trial Court itself has exercised its discretion so vested in it to reduce bond amount of ` 50,000/- to ` 20,000/- which is considerable reduction. Hence, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for further reduction of penalty amount.
In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to admit the appeal. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE *sp