Dismissed¶34

M S Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026CRL.RP/1610/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surety bond forfeiture; Section 446 CrPC penalty application; trial Court lenient 10% penalty (Rs.20,000/-) on Rs.2,00,000/- bond; conditional order automatically vacated on non-deposit making sureties liable for full bond; appeal Crl.A.No.118/2024 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, order dt. 21.07.2025) partly allowed, modification for accused No.3; Mohammed Kunju And Another vs State Of Karnataka, AIR 2000 SC 6 referred (Apex Court reduced 25%); revision petition dismissed; Justice H.P. Sandesh; High Court of Karnataka, 08-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision petition was dismissed and the appellate Court's modified penalty order (accused No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/-) stands. ¶34

M S Puttaswamy Vs State of Karnataka by — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:34920 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1610 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M S PUTTASWAMY S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND PAINTER, R/O 1 CROSS, DURGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, NALLUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,

¶10

M. S. SHEKAR, S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND PAINTER, R/O UNDEDASARAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. MOHAN K N,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34920 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 21.07.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.118/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner.

¶24

2. This order is challenged before this Court by the

¶25

revision petitioners wherein, these petitioners have given a surety and executed a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- before the trial Court and when the accused No.1 and 3 did not appear before the Court, surety notice was issued and they took time before the trial Court to produce accused Nos.1 and 3, but the revision petitioners failed to produce the said accused Nos.1 and 3. Hence, the bond was forfeited and later on, the application is filed under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court and the trial Court considered the said application in a

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34920 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

lenient way. Though the counsel for the revision petitioners referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M ohammed Kunju And Another vs State Of Karnataka reported in AIR 2000 SC 6 decided on

¶29

29 October, 1999 , wherein the Apex Court has reduced 25% of the fine amount, the trial Court even further shown lenience in only ordering for 10% i.e.,Rs.20,000/-. Even in spite of it, the same was not paid by the revision petitioner. The order was also conditional order wherein, it is mentioned that in case if he fails to deposit the amount, the order stands automatically vacated and thereafter, appellants/sureties are liable to pay the entire bail bond amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-. The said order was challenged before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.118/ 2024 and the same is partly allowed by modifying the order of the trial Court in respect of accused No.3 is concerned. In respect of accused No.1, he was directed to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/-. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to show more lenience when the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:34920 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

order of the trial Court is very lenient in passing the order

¶34

to pay the penalty to an extent of 10%, the question of reducing further does not arise. Therefore, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision and the revision

¶35

petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶36

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶37

SSD

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

M S Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. T.Karthik Raja, Vs Sri. V.M. Prabhakar

Sri Vageesha J P Vs Sri S K Murulidhar

J T Rangegowda Vs D K Nagaraju

Siddiq Vs Sri C Purushothama

Siddiq Vs Sri B K Nagaraju

Sri M Shivaramu Vs Yes Square Enterprises