IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2336 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
VALI @ VALMIKI S/O. LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCC: DRIVER R/O. BUKKAMBUDI THAREKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577145. … PETITIONER (BY SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PARASHURAMPURA POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 538.
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.02.2017 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN S.C.NO.142/2015 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY A SUM OF RS.5,000/- OUT OF RS.4,00,000/- EARLIER INDEMNITY BOND/FORFEITURE BOND AMOUNT BY REMISSION OF RS.3,95,000/- TO THE STATE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.142/2015 insofar as it relates to directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- out of Rs.4,00,000/- towards indemnity bond/forfeiture bond given by the petitioner.
3. The outline facts leading to the petition are as follows:-
A Tata ACE Auto bearing registration No.KA-18- A-7066 was released to the interim custody of the petitioner under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. During the Course of trial, the said vehicle was produced by the petitioner before the Court in compliance with the conditions of the bond. However, the Court having noticed that the photographs which were directed to be produced by the petitioner while taking release of the said vehicle to the interim custody, having not been found in the charge sheet, the learned trial Court directed to forfeit a sum of Rs.5,000/- out of total bond amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.
4. One of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., reads as under:-
“(d) Revision petitioner shall produce photos of the vehicle to the Investigating Officer before receiving the vehicle from the Police.”
5. The very fact that the vehicle has been released to the interim custody of the petitioner presupposes that the Investigating Officer had collected the photographs from the petitioner and only thereafter, released the vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner. Under said circumstances, Investigating Officer alone was required to produce the said document along with charge sheet. For the failure of Investigating Officer to produce these documents along with charge sheet, the petitioner cannot be penalized nor can he be proceeded against for alleged violation of the conditions of the bond. The circumstances of the case indicate that the petitioner has not violated any conditions of the bond. As a result, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge forfeiting part of the bond amount is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.02.2017 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.142/2015 to the extent of directing forfeiture of Rs.5,000/- is set aside. The trial Court is directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner/accused No.7.
PYR Sd/- JUDGE