Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 74
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
Venkatesh Naik T, J.
Naveen S/O. Suresh Ugargol - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Rept. By State Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 101933 of 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)
Decided On : 09-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Vasant G. Holeyannavar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Jairam Siddi, HCGP
Jumping bail results in automatic forfeiture of the bond; non-compliance with bail conditions justifies rejection of bail applications.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B and 302 - Bail application rejected due to absconding and non-compliance with bail conditions - Court emphasized that jumping bail results in automatic forfeiture of the bond - Court utilized discretionary powers to allow another opportunity for petitioner to seek bail, subject to compliance with bond conditions. (Paras 2, 8, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, charged with serious offenses, absconded after being granted bail and was subsequently arrested. The trial Court rejected his bail application, citing non-compliance with prior bail conditions and the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition as the petitioner failed to comply with the bond conditions and expressed concerns over the potential forfeiture of bail bonds.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the implications of jumping bail and the conditions under which bail may be regranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that jumping bail results in automatic forfeiture of the bond and emphasized the necessity of compliance with conditions for any future bail applications.
Result: The criminal petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arrest and bail application history. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's claim of innocence vs. state’s opposition. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. implications of bail jump on bond forfeiture. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court’s discretionary power in bail decision. (Para 12) |
| 6. further conditions for considering bail in future applications. (Para 13) |
| 7. order on bail petition dismissal with conditions. (Para 14) |
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. 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 acc
