Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 433 (KAR)

Basanna v. State Through Kembhavi Police Station

2013-04-02

H.G.RAMESH

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The delay of 60 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, IA No.3/13 is allowed. 2. This appeal is against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Yadgir in SC No.26/2010 i.e., surety proceedings arising out of forfeiture of bond for non production of accused before the Court and for violating bail conditions in SC No.26/2010. 3. The appellants are the sureties. When the accused were granted bail in SC No.26/2010, the appellants herein stood as sureties to them. After granting bail, the accused have not appeared before the Court and they remained absent and non-bailable warrants which were issued were not executed. As such, the matter was posted for judgment, at that time alleging violation of conditions of bail, as the appellants stood as sureties, their bail bonds were forfeited after issuing them show cause notice. The appellants appeared before the Court, they failed to produce the accused. As such, their surety bonds were forfeited and FLW was issued. 4. It appears, when the matter was in progress before the Sessions Judge and when it was posted for judgment, the accused have absconded. As such, proceedings was initiated under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. against the sureties. The appellants who are the sureties are before this Court in appeal against the order of imposing penalty of Rs.50,000/- for each of the accused, as both of them stood as sureties to eight accused. It is for the accused to pay as per the order of the Sessions Judge. As against the order of FLW these sureties are before this Court challenging the order of the Sessions Judge imposing the penalty. 5. Heard. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-sureties submitted that the appellants are innocent people and they were not aware of the lapse on the part of the accused and thereafter, the accused themselves have surrendered and Sessions Judge has rendered the sentence. The act of the accused cannot be attributed to the appellants-sureties. There is no deliberate act on the part of the accused nor on the part of the surety. Accordingly, he has sought for setting aside the order. 7. The accused have already surrendered and they are undergoing sentence. These appellants are the sureties and agriculturists by profession. The act of the accused cannot be attributed to the appellants-sureties. There is no deliberate act on the part of the accused nor on the part of the surety. Accordingly, he has sought for setting aside the order. 7. The accused have already surrendered and they are undergoing sentence. These appellants are the sureties and agriculturists by profession. In the circumstance, the fine imposed is reduced to Rs.25,000/- to be paid by each of the appellants herein (**) in two installments, in modification of the order of the Sessions Judge, Yadgir dated 26.11.2012. Accordingly, appeal is allowed in part. 8. In view of disposal of main appeal itself, IA No.2/13 does not survive for consideration.