Thousif Ahamad @ Thotha vs State Of Karnataka

H.P. Sandesh, J

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

The present petition is filed under Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, by the Petitioner/accused No.1 praying this Court to relax the bail order condition No.2 i.e., ‘Accused No.1 shall deposit forfeited bond amount of Rs.50,000/- as penalty.’, imposing in S.C.No.357/2019 vide order dated 18.12.2021 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-57) at Bengaluru.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is very poor and very difficult to comply condition No.2. The petitioner and his families are doing coolie work, hence, it is very difficult to deposit the forfeited bond amount of Rs.50,000/- as penalty in the pandemic situation. The petitioner is a daily wager and he is the only bread winner in the family and without the presence of the petitioner the family will suffer for their livelihood. Hence, the order requires to be modified.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that this petitioner was enlarged on bail earlier and he has furnished the surety and subsequently he remained absent before the Court. Hence, NBW was issued and surety notice was also issued. The notice issued to the Surety returned with an endorsement that he has not given any surety and the said person was impersonated. Hence, the bail bond was forfeited to Government and directed to deposit the forfeited bond amount. The Court made an observation with regard to Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. The Court has also observed that not only furnished false surety but also violated the bail conditions by not attending the Court. Hence, rejected the application filed for modification of condition No.2 and directing him to deposit the forfeited amount. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that it is not a case to modify the condition as imposed by the Trial Court.

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, this petitioner was enlarged on bail consequent upon enlarging him on bail, he had furnished surety. When he did not appear before the Trial Court, NBW was issued and simultaneously surety notice was also issued. The said surety notice was returned with an endorsement that a fake surety was furnished. He denied the very execution of the Surety. The said fact is also taken note of by the Trial Court that not only he has violated the bail conditions and also it has brought to the notice of the Court that the false surety was furnished. When such being the material on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner to modify the condition. The surety bond earlier executed was forfeited and issued the process for depositing of the said amount. When such being the material on record, it is not a case for exercising the discretion once again to modify the condition as imposed by the Trial Court and the Trial Court taken note of furnishing of false surety.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that accused No.3 also furnished the same surety but no such condition is imposed. But in the facts on record, this petitioner violated the very conditions of the bail order and furnished the false surety. The order passed by the Trial Court in respect of accused No.3, it is clear that he was regularly appearing before the Trial Court and he had also furnished the fresh surety when he came to know about a false surety was furnished. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not arise since this petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the Trial Court, which has been imposed earlier. Hence, no grounds are made out to modify the same.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.