Karnataka High Court
Jayalakshmi @ Vijayakakumari @ ... vs State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2016
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8551/2016
BETWEEN:
1. JAYALAKSHMI @ VIJAYAKAKUMARI
@ GUNDAMMA
W/O LATE THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
2. MARUTHI
S/O BHEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
HARAVIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.SHASHIDHARA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PARASHURAMPURA P.S.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
(1) (b) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO MODIFY THE CONDITION OF THE
BAIL, ORDER IN SPL.C.NO.22/2015 ORDER DATED 7.10.2016
PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
-2-
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA AND RELEASE THEM ON
BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.22/2015 OF RESPONDENT POLICE FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are accused in Special Case No.22/2015 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.
2. The respondent/Police filed charge sheet against the petitioners in respect of the offences under Sections 3(2)(v) of the S.C. and S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. As per the case made out by petitioners, they were on bail while the trial was in progress. On their remaining absent, NBW was ordered. On the next date of hearing i.e., on 24.9.2016, the accused persons voluntarily appeared before the Court but their Counsel was not present and they were taken to judicial custody. -3- Subsequently, they moved bail application; the learned Trial Judge after giving audience to the accused persons and the prosecution, vide order dated 7.10.2016 allowed the petition, which reads thus:
"The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
Accused No.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail after execution of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) each with likesum two sureties and by directing to pay in a sum of Rs.20,000/- each (Twenty Thousand) out of Rs.50,000/- earlier forfeiture bail bond amount by remission of Rs.30,000/- to the State."
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in financial distress and are unable to pay Rs.20,000/- as ordered by the Trial Court. Even otherwise, NBW ordered against them was not executed and they had voluntarily surrendered before the Court. That being so, there is no question of forfeiting their bail bond and the order of the learned Trial Judge requires to be set aside.
-4-
5. Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates procedure when the bond is forfeited and Section 446A further contemplates procedure for cancellation of bond and bail bond.
6. In the case on hand, without recording his satisfaction that the Bail bond and surety bond is forfeited, the learned Trial Judge has proceeded to direct the accused persons to pay Rs.20,000/- each, which is unknown to the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence, liable to be set aside.
The petition is allowed. The order dated 7.10.2016 passed in Special Case No.22/2015 by the Special 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, to the extent of directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, is hereby set aside.
The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on executing self bond and surety bond in accordance with -5- the terms laid down by the learned Court in the impugned order.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-