Dismissed

Thousif Ahamad @ Thotha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/1186/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal petition seeking modification of bail conditions requiring deposit of forfeited bond amount. The court held that a petition denying false surety furnished and non-appearance violated bail conditions, precluding modification.

What did the court decide?

Petition for relaxation of bail order conditions imposing penalty amount is rejected.

Thousif Ahamad @ Thotha Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1186/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THOUSIF AHAMAD @ THOTHA S/O TAJ AHMED AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NEAR INDRA GANDHI MEMORIAL SCHOOL FRONT OF HUSENIYA MASJID D.J. HALLI BENGALURU – 560 045.

¶8

NOW. R/AT HUSANIA MASJID MODI ROAD, D.J.HALLI BENGALURU NORTH ARABIC COLLEGE BENGALURU NORTH-45 … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI BIRADAR SHOUKATALI USMANPATE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY D.J. HALLI P.S REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(1)(b) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO RELAXATION THE BAIL ORDER CONDITIONS NO.2 i.e., PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 SHALL DEPOSIT FORFEITED BOND AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- AS PENALTY, IMPOSED IN S.C.NO.357/2019 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-57), BENGALURU.

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

¶17

The present petition is filed under Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, by the Petitioner/accused No.1 praying this Court to relax the bail order condition No.2 i.e., ‘Accused No.1 shall deposit forfeited bond amount of Rs.50,000/- as penalty.’, imposing in S.C.No.357/2019 vide order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-57) at Bengaluru.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶19

would submit that the petitioner is very poor and very difficult to

¶20

¶21

comply condition No.2. The petitioner and his families are doing coolie work, hence, it is very difficult to deposit the forfeited bond amount of Rs.50,000/- as penalty in the pandemic situation. The petitioner is a daily wager and he is the only bread winner in the family and without the presence of the petitioner the family will suffer for their livelihood. Hence, the order requires to be modified.

¶22

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that this petitioner was enlarged on bail earlier and he has furnished the surety and subsequently he remained absent before the Court. Hence, NBW was issued and surety notice was also issued. The notice issued to the Surety returned with an endorsement that he has not given any surety and the said person was impersonated. Hence, the bail bond was forfeited to Government and directed to deposit the forfeited bond amount. The Court made an observation with regard to Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. The Court has also observed that not only furnished false surety but also violated the bail conditions by not attending

¶23

¶24

the Court. Hence, rejected the application filed for modification of condition No.2 and directing him to deposit the forfeited amount. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that it is not a case to modify the condition as imposed by the Trial Court.

¶25

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶26

perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, this petitioner was enlarged on bail consequent upon enlarging him on bail, he had furnished surety. When he did not appear before the Trial Court, NBW was issued and simultaneously surety notice was also issued. The said surety notice was returned with an endorsement that a fake surety was furnished. He denied the very execution of the Surety. The said fact is also taken note of by the Trial Court that not only he has violated the bail conditions and also it has brought to the notice of the Court that the false surety was furnished. When such being the material on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner to modify the condition. The surety bond earlier executed was forfeited and issued the process for depositing of

¶27

¶28

the said amount. When such being the material on record, it is not a case for exercising the discretion once again to modify the condition as imposed by the Trial Court and the Trial Court taken note of furnishing of false surety.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that accused No.3 also furnished the same surety but no such condition is imposed. But in the facts on record, this petitioner violated the very conditions of the bail order and furnished the false surety. The order passed by the Trial Court in respect of accused No.3, it is clear that he was regularly appearing before the Trial Court and he had also furnished the fresh surety when he came to know about a false surety was furnished. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not arise since this petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the Trial Court, which has been imposed earlier. Hence, no grounds are made out to modify the same.

¶30

¶31

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is rejected.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

cp*

Thousif Ahamad @ Thotha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thousif Ahamad @ Thotha 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

Manjunatha Vs the State

Sri. Reddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Somachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena Vs the State of Karnataka

Dayananda Vs State of Karnataka

Anthony Raj. B, Vs the State of Karnataka