JUDGMENT : Since learned Counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent submit that this matter is a small matter and it can be taken up for final disposal, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-surety with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in S.C No.353/2012 dated 9.10.2017. 3. The factual story of the case is that the appellant herein stood as surety for the accused in the Sessions case No.353/2012 and executed bond for amount of Rs.50,000/-. For some time, the accused was attending the Court and on 27.3.2017, the accused was absent before the Court below and hence, the Court below issued NBW against the accused, simultaneously issued notice to the appellant herein. On 31.5.2017, the appellant-surety appeared before the Court below and submitted that accused was in custody in another case. On 31.8.2017, the Court below forfeited bail bond and on 7.10.2017, the appellant filed an application under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. and the Court below rejected the said application by order dated 19.10.2017 and issued fine levy warrant against the appellant for Rs.50,000/- to be executed through Tahsildar from attachment of property of the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-surety is before this Court in this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-surety and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, who is the surety in the case, is the poor man having one agricultural land for his livelihood. Now because of the order passed by the Court below, the fine levy warrant has been issued. As the landed property is the only land for the survival of the appellant-surety, when request was made by filing an application under section 446(3) of Cr.P.C., the Court below did not consider the prayer for remission of the amount. Hence, he made submission to allow the appeal and to set aside the order of the Court below. 6. As the landed property is the only land for the survival of the appellant-surety, when request was made by filing an application under section 446(3) of Cr.P.C., the Court below did not consider the prayer for remission of the amount. Hence, he made submission to allow the appeal and to set aside the order of the Court below. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that it is the appellant-surety himself voluntarily came forward to stand as surety to the accused and admittedly, as the accused remained absent, the bail bond was forfeited and notice was issued, in this connection, to the appellant-surety. It is an order passed after giving opportunity to the appellant-surety and not an ex-parte order without hearing the appellant herein. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is to be rejected. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. 8. The fact that the appellant stood as surety to the accused is not in dispute so also execution of the bail bond for Rs.50,000/-. However, looking to the contention of the appellant through the application filed under section 446(3) of Cr.P.C., he has stated that he is suffering from ill health and doing agricultural coolie work and he has to look after his family. It is also his contention that it is not possible for him to trace the accused. Hence, he requested the Court below to impose the nominal fine. The Court below after considering the merits of the application, ultimately, rejected the application giving direction to issue fine levy warrant to be executed through the Tahsildar. In view of the contentions raised by the appellant-surety in his application filed under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. and the reasons mentioned in the said application about his inability and financial condition and as he is also suffering from ill health, the appellant has made out reasons for allowing his application. However, the Court below has not considered the request of the appellant-surety and rejected the said application. Looking to the provisions under section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. so also the reasons made out by the appellant in his application filed under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that the amount which is ordered to be recovered from the appellant can be reduced to Rs.25,000/- in stead of Rs.50,000/-. Looking to the provisions under section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. so also the reasons made out by the appellant in his application filed under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that the amount which is ordered to be recovered from the appellant can be reduced to Rs.25,000/- in stead of Rs.50,000/-. To that extent, the order passed by the Court below is modified and the appellant surety is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- before the concerned Court within a period of six weeks from today. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.