ORDER : Venkatesh Naik T, J. Heard, Sri.Vasant G. Holeyannavar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), in connection with S.C.No.173/2019 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Dharwad, for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: The petitioner and others were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, on the allegations that accused Nos.1 to 5 had kidnapped the deceased on 26.07.2019 and committed murder. Hence, the complaint was lodged. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. 4. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested and on 27.08.2025, petitioner/accused No.2 was enlarged on bail. Later, he absconded. Therefore, the trial Court issued a non-baialble warrant, against the petitioner and the petitioner was secured by respondent-Police and in turn, he was remanded to judicial custody. 5. Hence, the petitioner had filed a bail application before the trial Court and in turn, the trial Court rejected the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions imposed in the said bail order. 6. It is urged in the bail petition that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He undertakes to appear before the Court on all the hearing dates and undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences and since he has absconded, the trial Court had issued non-bailable warrant and in turn, he was secured and remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of the bail petition. 8. Perusal of the material on record, it shows that on 27.08.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench had granted bail to petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.100912/2024, subject to execution of personal a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the like sum. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of the bail petition. 8. Perusal of the material on record, it shows that on 27.08.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench had granted bail to petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.100912/2024, subject to execution of personal a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the like sum. However, during subsequent period, accused No.2 remained absent and also violated condition Nos.2 and 3. 9. It shows that, it is a case of bail jump inasmuch as the present petitioner was granted bail by the Co- ordinate Bench and on subsequent dates, the accused remained absent, thus, the Trial Court issued non-bailable warrant and later, he was remanded to judicial custody. 10. It is pertinent to note that whenever it is a case of jumping of bail by the accused, whether there requires an order to be passed by the Court as to the actual bond or not, was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sadananda Vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 1985 KAR 2813 . Wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has clearly held that jumping of bail automatically results in forfeiture of the bond and no separate order is necessary as to forfeiture of the bond amount is concerned. 11. Further, insofar as the surety is concerned, there is a provision under Cr.P.C. i.e., Section 446(2) of Cr.P.C. that the Court may order for remission of portion of the bond amount in the event the Court is satisfied that the surety did all his best to secure the presence of the accused, but he was unable to do so. But, similar provision is not available for remission of the bond amount insofar as the accused is concerned. Therefore, the unequivocal bond is executed by the petitioner in favour of the State promising his presence before the Court, till the bond comes to an end by process known to law. When such promise is broken, entirely on the acts that could be attributable to the conduct of the accused, there cannot be any other plea that the accused can raise insofar as the forfeiture of the bond is concerned. When such promise is broken, entirely on the acts that could be attributable to the conduct of the accused, there cannot be any other plea that the accused can raise insofar as the forfeiture of the bond is concerned. Therefore, this Court finds sufficient force in the arguments advanced by the learned HCGP that in case this Court has to consider grant of bail again to the accused, one of the necessary conditions that would be imposed by this Court is recovery of the earlier bond amount. 12. Therefore, though it is not a case where the accused is entitled to grant of bail as of right, especially when it is stated in the petition that he had not filed any other similar petition before any other Court for the same relief, this Court in the interest of justice is resorting to allow the bail petition by using the discretionary and special powers vested in this Court for affording one more opportunity for petitioner to participate in the trial by remaining outside Court on bail. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is a poor person and is not ready to pay bond amount. 14. His submission is placed on record. Since it is the case of bail jump and the petitioner is not ready to pay bond amount as directed in the earlier bail order, there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is dismissed ii. However, if the petitioner intends to pay earlier bond amount, and file criminal bail application in that eventuality, the trial Court is at liberty to dispose the petition in accordance with law, in the light of the observation made herein above.