Dismissed

Imam S/O. Abdulsa Bhavikatti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2021CRL.P/101293/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as not maintainable. The petitioner, a surety, challenged an order for recovery of a forfeited bail bond. The court held that since the order was under Section 446 Cr.P.C., the remedy lies under Section 449 Cr.P.C. via appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable; liberty reserved to prefer an appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C.

Imam S/O. Abdulsa Bhavikatti Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 03^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101293 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

IMRAM S/O ABDULSA BHAVIKATTI AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.SHIVANAGI, TQ & DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.KOUJALAGI C.L., ADV.) (ABSENT)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY P.S.I ILKAL POLICE STATION, ILKAL NOW PRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

¶12

DODDAPPA S/O VENKAPPA KANDAKOORA AGE:56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O GONALA S.T., TQ:HUNAGUNDA, DIST:BAGALKOT-587103.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1) (R2-SERVED)

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.2.2018 PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.1179/2017 (SC NO.48/2013) BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 394, 447, 74, 177 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC INSOFAR AS PETITIONER (SURETY) IS CONCERNED.

¶16

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Case is called for the 2^nd time and even now, learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.

¶20

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is praying for setting-aside the order dated 19.2.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1179/2017 arising from SC No.48/2013 on the file of the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot.

¶21

The present petitioner had stood surety for accused Nos.1 and 2. Since accused No.1 and 2 absconded, the proceedings were initiated against both sureties including the present petitioner. On 19.2.2018, this petitioner remained absent and therefore, learned Sessions Judge has directed the revenue authorities to recover the bond amount as arrears of land revenue and to submit a report. It is this order that has been called in question in this proceedings before me.

¶22

¶23

Learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State

¶24

submits that the order impugned herein is an order which is in the nature of sequel to the forfeiture of bond under Section 446 of Cr.P.C., and therefore, such order is appealable under Section 449 of Cr.P.C. He submits that in view of the same, the petitioner can question the impugned order only by preferring an appeal and not by filing criminal petition as has been done by him now. Therefore, he submits that this petition is not maintainable and proper course for the petitioner to adopt is to file an appeal.

¶25

I find considerable force in the submission of learned HCGP and agreeing with the same, I hold that this petition is not maintainable. Hence, the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

a) The above petition is dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in

¶28

accordance with law.

¶29

¶30

b) In view of the above order, IA No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration, and hence, it is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

JTR

Imam S/O. Abdulsa Bhavikatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imam S/O. Abdulsa Bhavikatti v. the 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

Guruprashanth V.M. Vs the State of Karnataka

Tirakappa S/O Pundalikappa Atagai Vs the State of Karnataka

B Shantharam Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nasima W/O Mehaboob Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa Bddivantappa Doddamani Vs State of Karnataka

Princekumar S/O. Jaoprakash Vs State of Karnataka