Though this matter is listed for admission with the

consent of both the counsels, the matter is taken up for

final disposal.

2.

Heard Sri Kailash C. Jidage, leaned counsel for

the appellant and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High

Court Government Pleader for respondent/State and

perused the records.

3.

After hearing for sometime, memo is filed by

the learned counsel for the appellant. Memo which is

placed on record reads as under:

“In the above case, the appellant is ready to

deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- as bond amount. The

same condition may be accepted and appeal may be

disposed. Hence, this memo.”

- 3 -

4.

The appeal is filed under Section 449 (ii) of

Cr.P.C. by the appellant who stood as surety to

accused/Ningangouda for grant of bail in Special Case

No.08/2015. On account of jumping of bail, the Trial Court

ordered for confiscation of the bond amount in entirety.

Being aggrieved by the same, the surety has filed the

aforesaid appeal.

5.

Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal

memorandum, learned counsel for the appellant Sri

Kailash C. Jidage contended that there is no intention of

the accused in not appearing before the Court and within

fifteen days, the learned Special Judge has forfeited the

bond amount and accused voluntarily appeared before the

Court and surety is not responsible for jumping of the bail

by the accused and sought for allowing the appeal.

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader contended that when once the accused jumps the

- 4 -

bail by violating the conditions imposed for grant of bail,

the bond gets forfeited automatically. Therefore, learned

trial judge is justified in forfeiting the bond of the surety

and the accused and therefore, appeal needs to be

dismissed.

7.

This Court perused the records in the light of

the arguments put forth by the parties. The point that

would arise for consideration is:-

Whether forfeiture of the entire bond

amount by the Trial Court is justified in the

facts and circumstances of the case?

8.

In the case on hand, admittedly, accused has

jumped the bail. Trial Court left with no alternative had to

issue non-bailable warrant. When once a person jumps the

bail, according to the scheme of Code of Criminal

Procedure, the Trial Court judge need not write a separate

order forfeiting the bond amount. In other words,

forfeiture of the bond amount is automatic and notice

- 5 -

would be issued by the Court as to why the bond amount

need not be forfeited to the government.

9.

In the case on hand, an order came to be

passed by the Trial Court as the surety remained absent

despite service of notice and therefore, bond was

confiscated.

10. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt as to the

veracity of the order passed by the learned trial judge.

However, the Trial Court has confiscated the bond for the

entire amount. Taking note of the memo filed on behalf of

the appellant, the order need to be modified.

11. Accordingly, the point is answered partly in

affirmative and following order is passed:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed in part.

As against the bond amount in respect of the bail

granted in favour of the accused/Ningangouda, surety of

Ningangouda who is the appellant is directed to pay

- 6 -

Rs.15,000/- towards forfeiture of the bond amount

executed in Special Case No.08/2015, on the file of District

and Sessions Judge, at Yadgir.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13