Sher Singh @ Shobia v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2025CRL.P/3456/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 3456 of 2025; decided 12 March 2025; Hemant Chandangoudar, J.; S.482 CrPC 1973 / S.528 BNSS; forfeiture of bail bond; non-bailable warrant; accused No.3 absence on 06.03.2025; exemption on 15.02.2025; S.C.No.1286/2019; Hennur PS; IPC ss.302, 326, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149; order set aside; appearance directed on 27.3.2025; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.03.2025 in S.C.No.1286/2019 set aside insofar as it forfeits the bail bond of the petitioner - accused No.3 and issues a non-bailable warrant; petitioner directed to appear before the Trial Court on 27.3.2025, failing which the Trial Court may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. ¶¶26

Sher Singh @ Shobia Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court was justified in forfeiting the bail bond of accused No.3 (petitioner) and issuing a non-bailable warrant after he remained absent along with his counsel on 06.03.2025, when his presence had been exempted on the earlier occasion of 15.02.2025.

¶¶23

Court's answer

The Trial Court was not justified in forfeiting the bail bond of accused No.3 and issuing a non-bailable warrant instead of providing one more opportunity to appear before the Trial Court; the impugned order is not legally sustainable.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed in SC No.1286/2019 by the XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-29) is set aside insofar as it forfeits the bail bond of the petitioner - accused No.3 and issues a non-bailable warrant.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

The petitioner is required to appear before the Trial Court on 27.3.2025, failing which the Trial Court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C (filed u/s 528 BNSS) against forfeiture of bail bond and issuance of non-bailable warrant. Petitioner, accused No.3 in S.C.No.1286/2019 (offences u/ss 302, 326, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC, Hennur PS), was enlarged on bail in 2019 on condition of regular appearance. Order sheet showed he was present on 10.01.2025, absent on 15.02.2025 with an exemption application allowed, and absent with counsel on 06.03.2025, upon which the Trial Court forfeited his bail bond and issued a non-bailable warrant. Holding that a single absence, following an exempted absence, did not justify forfeiture without affording one more opportunity to appear, the High Court (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.) set aside the order dated 06.03.2025 insofar as it related to the forfeiture and the warrant, and directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court on 27.03.2025, failing which the Trial Court was free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10505 CRL.P No. 3456 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3456 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHER SINGH @ SHOBIA S/O KANTE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.41, NEAR GLASS FACTORY, REDDY'S HOUSE, CHELEKERE, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HENNUR PS REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 (FILED U/S. 528 BNSS) CR.P.C, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-29) IN S.C.NO.1286/2019 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT/HENNUR POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 326, 341, 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:10505 CRL.P No. 3456 of 2025

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein the bail bond of accused No.3 was forfeited to state, and non-bailable warrant came to be issued.

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner was enlarged on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC by the Trial Court in the year 2019 subjected to certain terms and conditions, and one of the conditions imposed was that the petitioner was required to appear before the Trial Court without fail.

¶23

Perusal of the order sheet indicated that on 10.1.2025, accused No.3 was present, and on 15.2.2025, accused No.3 had remained absent. An exemption application was filed, and the presence of accused No.3 was exempted. On 6.3.2025, accused No.3 and his counsel were called out, and had remained absent. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in forfeiting of the bail bond, and issued a non-bailable warrant instead of providing one more opportunity to appear before the Trial Court. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is not legally sustainable.

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:10505 CRL.P No. 3456 of 2025

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed in SC No.1286/2019 by the learned XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-29) insofar as it relates to forfeiting the bail bond of the petitioner - accused No.3 and issuing non-bailable warrant is hereby set aside.

¶27

The petitioner is required to appear before the Trial Court on 27.3.2025, failing which, the Trial Court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶28

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶29

BKM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Sher Singh @ Shobia v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Singh @ Shobia v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hanumesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shantharaju G N., Vs the State by

Majhar Anwar Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Allauddeen Vs the State of Karnataka

Deepika Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. T. D. Nagaraj Vs Sumesh Kumar