The court emphasizes the necessity of due process before canceling bail bonds and the right to apply for exemption from personal appearance.

ORDER

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent No.1-State.

2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2022 in Crime No.83/2018 of Puttur Police Station, pending on the file of the Principal Sessions and Special judge, D.K, Mangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest Deposits (for short 'KPID') in Financial Establishment Act, after rejecting exemption application and cancelling the bail bonds.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused was arrested and released on bail in the year 2018. Thereafter, he continuously appeared before the Court, and the police did not complete the investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed. Also sometimes he was not been able to appear before the Court. Hence, an exemption application has been filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., and the same was allowed. Once the petitioner was absent and warrant has been recalled and thereafter, on 06.12.2022, the petitioner was absent and an exemption application was filed which came to be rejected and the bail bond was cancelled. Hence, he is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel further submits that even during the Covid lockdown period, the petitioner has appeared for last more than four years. He was regularly appearing before the Court. But, the police have not yet filed the charge sheet. The presence of the petitioner may not be very necessary for the trial Court for conducting the trial or framing of the charges in the case. Merely, petitioner being remained absent for one day, cancelling of the bail is not correct.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader is objected orally.

7. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, on perusal the order sheet, which reveals that the FIR was registered in the year 2018 in Crime No.83/2018 by the Puttur Town Police Station and the matter pertains to the Special Act i.e. Karnataka Protection of Interest Depositors in Financial Establishment Act . Hence, the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore is the Special Court for trial of the offence. The order sheet reveals that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the Court but only sometimes he was absent. The Court was awaiting the final/FSL report along with the handwriting experts' report. The order sheet which discloses that it is still in the crime stage. Of course, on 07.11.2022, the accused has appeared and NBW issued against him under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C was recalled by imposing penalty of Rs.500/-.

8. However, on the next date of hearing i.e 06.12.2022, again the accused was absent and the learned counsel for the accused filed an exemption application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. which came to be dismissed and even otherwise without issuing NBW, the trial Court directly cancelled the bail bond and surety bond, and separate miscellaneous case was ordered to be registered against the petitioner and which is not correct. Before cancelling the bail bond, the trial Court ought to have issued NBW and also surety notice and thereafter, learned Magistrate has to cancell the bail bond of the accused. Even merely, a cancelled bail bond will not survive for any purpose, except the bail bond is forfeited by the Court to the State. Considering the case and order of the trial court, for cancelling bail bond and ordering to register a separate miscellaneous case against the petitioner-accused No.1, which is not correct, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

ORDER

(i) Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

(ii) Th