DATED

06.12.2022

MADE

IN

CR.NO.83/2018 OF PUTTUR TOWN P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE

Digitally

signed by C

SOWMYA

Location:

High Court of

Karnataka

- 2 -

OF THE PRL. SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE

REJECTING THE E.P FILED, CANCELLING BAIL BONDS OF THE

PETITIONER AND HIS SURETY AND ISSUING N.B.W AGAINST

THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

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

- 3 -

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.

- 4 -

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

- 5 -

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 orde