G.V. Srinivas & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Others

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in S.C.No.70/2018 by the III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkballapura for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

The factual matrix of the case is that these petitioners had furnished the surety on behalf of the accused, who has been charge sheeted for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The accused failed to appear before the Court regularly and hence, notice was issued against the

sureties also. In the meanwhile, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, the matter was periodically adjourned. The notice was reissued to the sureties on

13.01.2021 asking the sureties to produce the accused before the Court. That on 30.01.2021, the accused was produced before the Court and then

taken to the custody. Thereafter, when the accused was produced before the Court from the Judicial Custody on 18.02.2021, the sureties had also

appeared before the Court and thus, they were directed to pay the bond amount of Rs.50,000/- each. Hence, the said order has been challenged

before this Court.

Having perused the records, no doubt, surety notice was issued against the petitioners herein and before service of notice, the accused was secured

before the Trial Court on 30.01.2021 itself and there is no reference in the order sheet for having served the surety notice. However, it is noticed that

on the next date of hearing, when the accused was in the judicial custody and produced before the Court, the sureties voluntarily appeared before the

Court. Without forfeiting the surety bond, the Court below directed the petitioners to pay the bond amount of Rs.50,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the order impugned is illegal. In fact, the petitioners themselves traced the

accused and informed the police, who took him to the custody and produced before the Court. Petitioners have also filed an application for discharge

explaining their difficulties and submits that accused has already been secured and produced before the Court.

Having perused the order sheet, no such application is filed before the Trial Court either for discharge or even seeking the order for remission of the

amount. Having perused the order, without forfeiting the bond amount, learned Sessions Judge directed the sureties to pay the bond amount when the

accused had already secured before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. Petitioners also ought to have been filed the necessary application

seeking their discharge from the surety, which is not done. When such being the case, the notice was not served upon the petitioners and when the

petitioners themselves had voluntarily appeared before the Court, it is appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter to the Trial Court. The

petitioners can approach the jurisdictional Court by filing the necessary application seeking for the discharge, which has to be assessed by the Trial

Court by affording an opportunity to the respective parties.

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 18.02.2021 passed in S.C.No.70/2018 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, is set aside.

(ii) The petitioners are directed to approach the District Court seeking an appropriate remedy.

In view of allowing the main petition, I.As., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.