Skip to content


Matte Manjunatha Vs. State by Hosadurga, P.S. rep. by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Petition No. 6706 of 2016
Judge
AppellantMatte Manjunatha
RespondentState by Hosadurga, P.S. rep. by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore
Excerpt:
.....bail, is regulated by section 446a of cr.p.c. which reads thus: 446a. cancellation of bond and bailbond. without prejudice to the provisions of section 446, where a bond under this code is for appearance of a person in a case and it is forfeited for breach of a condition (a) the bond executed by such person as well as the bond, if any, executed by one or more of his sureties in that case shall stand cancelled; and (b) thereafter no such person shall be released only on his own bond in that case, if the police officer or the court, as the case may be, for appearance before whom the bond was executed, is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for the failure of the person bound by the bond to comply with its condition: provided that subject to any other provision of this code.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 (1)(a)(b) of Cr.P.C., praying to modify the order and relax the conditions passed by the Hon ble Spl. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga District dated 29.08.2016 in S.C.No.50/2016 pending on the file of Hon ble Spl. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga District.)

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. This is a petition filed under Section 439(1)(a)(b) of Cr.P.C. for modification of the order passed by the Sessions Judge on his file in S.C.No.50/2016. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reads thus:

The petitioner filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

Accused is enlarged on bail after execution of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) with like-sum two sureties and by directing to pay in a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) out of Rs.50,000/- earlier forfeiture bail bond amount by remission of Rs.30,000/- to the State.

3. The above order speaks by itself that the learned Sessions Judge is imposing a fine of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner as a measure of forfeiting the earlier personal bond executing by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. If the Court is imposing fine consequent upon forfeiting the self bond executed by the accused, he has to proceed in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Section 446 of Cr.P.C. If he is ordering Rs.20,000/- as cash security for his release on bail, it is not permissible and against the spirit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of MOTI RAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in AIR 1978 SC 1594. Situation of this nature i.e. where the accused skips the loan of his bail bond, consequent upon which his bail bond is forfeited and again he seeks bail, is regulated by Section 446A of Cr.P.C. which reads thus:

446A. Cancellation of bond and bailbond. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 446, where a bond under this Code is for appearance of a person in a case and it is forfeited for breach of a condition

(a) the bond executed by such person as well as the bond, if any, executed by one or more of his sureties in that case shall stand cancelled; and

(b) thereafter no such person shall be released only on his own bond in that case, if the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, for appearance before whom the bond was executed, is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for the failure of the person bound by the bond to comply with its condition:

Provided that subject to any other provision of this Code he may be released in that case upon the execution of a fresh personal bond for such sum of money and bond by one or more of such sureties as the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient .

Thus the steps to be taken under Sections 446 and 446-A being different, amalgamating both provisions is foreign to the procedure contemplated by the Code, hence, the impugned order is erroneous and illegal.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The order of the Court below in so far imposing the condition against the petitioner to deposit Rs.20,000/- is modified as follows:

The petitioner shall execute a self-bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one local surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Henceforth, he shall attend the Court regularly and punctually .


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //