IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5303 OF 2011 BETWEEN:
SMT SUGUNA W/O MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.326/C, BELLANDUR VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
(BY SRI: H N PRAKASH, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) ... PETITIONER AND:
STATE BY SANJAY NAGAR POLICE BANGALORE (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:3.6.11 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC-IX, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.1047/07 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTIONS 436 AND 437 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS PETN.
AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETR. UNDER SECTIONS 436 AND 437 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE, IN S.C.NO.1047/07 AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Heard learned SPP-II and perused the records.
2. The petitioner herein filed an application under Sections 436 and 437 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the property alleged to have been offered by her as security for the release of accused No.1, who was facing trial in S.C.No.1047/2007. According to the petitioner, she did not offer surety to accused No.1 and did not execute any affidavit or surety bond for the release of accused No.1. She further contended that some person had impersonated her before the Court and had forged her signature on the affidavit and her name was used as surety for the release of accused No.1 and on the strength of certified copies relating to her properties, accused No.1 has secured his release and hence she sought for return of the documents and to discharge her from suretyship.
3. In support of her contention, the petitioner examined herself before the lower Court and took up a specific plea that she did not offer surety to accused No.1 and that the photo found on the application was not her photo. However, the trial court having observed that the petitioner did not deny her signature found in the affidavit, got the same compared with the signature of the petitioner on her vakalath form and has held that the signature on the vakalath and the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner while offering surety were similar. Further, the trial court has observed that along with the surety bond, for the purpose of identification of the executant, the petitioner herein had produced the identity card issued by the Election Commission. Having regard to these documents, the trial court was of the view that petitioner did stand as surety for the release of accused No.1 and it is only to wriggle out of her liability after accused No.1 remained absconding, she has come forward to deny having offered the surety; consequently dismissed the said application.
4. In the petition, except urging the very same contentions, the petitioner has not been able to show that the findings recorded by the trial court suffer from any error or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Though the petitioner had denied to have executed the surety bond, the trial court by recourse to Section 73 of the Evidence Act has found that the signature subscribed by the petitioner in her vakalath and the signature found in her affidavit are similar by appearance. Further, on considering the supporting documents which were in the custody of the Court, has proceeded to reject the application on the ground that those documents could not have come in possession of a third party without the concurrence of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no fault could be found with the finding recorded by the trial court in dismissing the application. I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-