Allowed

Shri Kallappa S/O Dundappa Latti v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2021CRL.A/100033/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal was filed by sureties challenging an order that remitted only 50% of the forfeited bond amount. The Court held that this contravened Supreme Court directives requiring a 20% remission. The appeal allowing the reversal of the lower order and modification to 20% was set aside as illegal.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial court directing payment of Rs.25,000 is set aside and modified to require payment of 20% of the bond amount each.

Shri Kallappa S/O Dundappa Latti Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶7

CRL.A.No.100033/2021

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SHRI KALLAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA LATTI, AGE 38 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O AGASAGI VILLAGE, POST KADOLI, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI.

¶10

SHRI. APPAYYA S/O BHOMANI NAGARAHALLA, AGE 41 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O 397 KALMESHWAR GALLI, AGASAGEI VILLAGE, POST KADOLI, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI

¶11

.....APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI SANTOSH.B.RAWOOT, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD SUB-URBAN PS) R/BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DHARWAD, THROUGH GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD

¶15

…..RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 449 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.360/2019 DATED 02/03/2020,

¶18

-2-

¶19

BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER LOOKING TO THE CONDITION OF THE PETITIONER THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed under Section 449 of Cr.P.C. by the respondents No.5 and 6 in Crl. Misc.No.360/2019 before the Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharwad, who are the sureties assailing the order dated 02.03.2020 directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- each towards the surety bond amount.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for appellants and learned H.C.G.P. for respondent.

¶23

Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellants who are the respondents before the trial Court had executed the bail bond for Rs.50,000/- each for accused No.3 but accused No.3 absconded. Appellants have been issued with notice by the trial Court and initiated proceedings in Crl.Misc.Pet.No.360/2019. Appellants filed an application under Section 446(3) of

¶24

-3-

¶25

Cr.P.C. for remission of surety bond amount. The trial Court by order dated 02.03.2020, directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- each. He submitted that the appellants are poor and are unable to pay the amount. Now the presence of the accused No.3 is already secured and he has paid the bond amount. Hence, learned counsel prayed to reduce the bond amount.

¶26

Learned H.C.G.P. objects for reduction of bond

¶27

amount and supports the order of the trial Court.

¶28

Perused the order of the trial Court.

¶29

The appellants have offered surety to the accused No.3 and he was absconded. The bail bonds executed by the appellants as well as by the accused No.3 have been forfeited and FLW was issued against the appellants. Subsequently, accused No.3 was secured and bond amount was collected by the trial Court. The appellants filed application under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. for remission of the bond amount. The trial Court reduced the amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- which is

¶30

-4-

¶31

against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar case, directed the appellants to pay 20% of the bond amount. Such being the case, reduction of 50% of the bond amount is not correct. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for remission of 80% and liable to pay only 20% of the bond amount i.e., 1/5^th of the bond amount. It is pertinent to note that the presence of the accused No.3 is already secured and he has paid the bond amount. Therefore, the appeal is required to be allowed.

¶32

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The criminal appeal is allowed. The order of the trial court directing the appellants to pay Rs.25,000/- is hereby set aside and modified that the appellants shall pay 20% each of the bond amount. Accordingly, the trial Court shall collect 20% each of the bond amount from the appellants.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Naa

Shri Kallappa S/O Dundappa Latti v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kallappa S/O Dundappa Latti v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faruq Saudhagar S/O Razawalla Vs the State of Karnataka

Rahul S/O Maruti Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sumitra W/O Kallayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramappa S/O Yellappa Amminbhavi Vs State of Karnataka

Arbaaz Khan Shilledar S/O. Ayub Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Pradeep H.S. Vs the State of Karnataka