Dismissed

Basavaraju v. State by Hsr Layout Police Bangalore

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2021CRL.A/112/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected an appeal against the forfeiture of a surety bond. The Sessions Judge held that appellants failed to produce accused persons under bond for offences under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and IPC. The High Court found no error in the forfeiture, noting the accused absconded. It allowed the surety an opportunity to clarify non-suretyship via application.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal disposed of dismissing the appeal; no error found in the forfeiture order.

Basavaraju Vs State by Hsr Layout Police Bangalore — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

BASAVARAJU

¶9

S/O DRUGAIAH

¶10

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.178A SANTHEKADURA VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 562160

¶11

VENKATESH.N.V. S/O LATE VENKATANARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.33-1 MALATHAHALLI, HALEGRAMA BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 562 160.

¶12

K.G.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH

¶13

S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.117, 1^ST CROSS HOSUR GRAMA AYANUR VILLAGE HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA -562 160 ... APPELLANTS

¶14

[BY SRI.RAJU.C.N., ADVOCATE]

¶15

AND

¶16

STATE BY HSR LAYOUT POLICE BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT [BY SMT. LEENA C. SHIVAPURMATH, HCGP]

¶17

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 449(ii) CRPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2019 PASSED BY THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-46), BENGALURU IN S.C. NO. 1022/2017 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is against the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 passed in S.C.No.1022/2017, on the file of the Court of XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore city.

¶23

The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order has directed the surety holders namely D.Basavaraju, N.V.Venkatesh and K.G.Chandrashekaraiah, to deposit the bond amount of `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) each as penalty within three weeks by way of Demand Draft in the name of Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore.

¶24

As per the impugned order, the appellants stood as surety for accused Nos.2 and 3, in connection with a case registered in crime No.342/2016 of HSR Layout Police

¶25

¶26

Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 370 of Indian Penal Code. The accused were released on their executing a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. After committal of the case, both the accused remained absent. Hence notices were issued to the surety holders. Inspite of granting sufficient time, the accused were not produced before the Court. Hence the surety bond came to be forfeited.

¶27

Learned Sessions Judge after considering the submissions made on behalf of the surety holders, was of the view that the terms and conditions of the bond has been violated. However, giving some relaxation of payment of bond amount, a sum of `15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) was waived-off.

¶28

From the material on record it appears that inspite of issuance of NBW against accused Nos.2 and 3, they were not traced and the surety holders having stood as surety to the said accused persons have failed to produce them

¶29

¶30

before the Court and therefore violated the terms of the bond.

¶31

Learned Sessions Judge has observed in the order that some of the persons are in the habit of offering surety even to the accused who hails from different state etc., and they stand as surety with fake and forged documents, due to which number of cases are pending and causing extra burden to the police to trace the accused and victim/sufferers are awaiting for justice. It is also observed that the surety namely N.V.Venkatesh in this case, has received notice in another case in S.C.No.988/2018 of Chandra layout Police Station and filed similar application to show leniency while imposing fine. In the said case also, the accused is absconding.

¶32

As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, due to abscondance of the accused and failure on the part of the surety holders to secure their presence inspite of standing as surety to them, number of criminal cases are sent to long pending register. In the case on hand since the surety holders have violated the terms of the bond by not keeping the presence of the accused persons before the Court, I do

¶33

¶34

not see any error in the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶35

Sri.Sateesh Chandra.K.V., learned counsel

¶36

appearing for the applicant in I.A.No.1/2021 has submitted that the said applicant namely K.Mahesh, is a bonafide purchaser of the property belonging to appellant No.3 namely K.G.Chandrashekariah and now by virtue of impugned order the property of the sureties has been directed to be attached to remit the bond amount of `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) each. In the affidavit, it is stated that he is ready to pay the fine amount instead of attaching the property imposed by the Court on the surety holder, K.G.Chandrashekariah.

¶37

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No.3/K.G.Chandrashekariah, has not stood as surety for accused Nos.2 and 3. However, order sheet of the trial Court would show that separate applications were filed by the surety holders under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C and even he was present before the trial Court.

¶38

¶39

In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, it is open for the surety holder namely K.G.Chandrashekariah, appellant No.3 to bring it to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge by filing necessary application, in case he has not stood as surety for the accused persons. In that event, the learned Sessions Judge shall verify as to whether he stood as a surety for the accused and pass necessary order on that application.

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Criminal appeal is disposed of with the above

¶42

observations.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

GVP

Basavaraju v. State by Hsr Layout Police Bangalore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraju v. State by Hsr Layout Police Bangalore

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

The State by Konaje Police Vs Asfan

Sri v Sanjeeva Vs Sri D Mukunda Naik

Smt Parvathi Vs Lakshmikanth

Devegowda K Vs State by Vijayanagara

State of Karnataka by Vs S Puttaswamy

Khadija @ Sapna Vs State of Karnataka