IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2127/2025 (449(Cr.PC)/

495(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. K A SALAHUDDIN S/O LATE ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O. No.6-167/20 KUNJATHAKALA HOUSE PUDU POST, FARANGIPET BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574143 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHAMMAD ANWAR.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 449 OF CR.P.C (U/S 495 Karnataka BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 17.02.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K IN CRL.MISC.NO.1543/2017.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Mangalore, dated

17.02.2018.

2. The learned Sessions Judge has passed the order as under:

"Learned PP present.

No representation for R-1 and R-2 till 3.20 p.m.

Perused the explanation filed by the R-1 on

07.02.2018.

This is against a case registered the respondents to recover bond amount, executed by them on

24.01.2011 in S.C.No.148/10.

The notice of this proceeding is served on R-1 and R-2. Thereafter they have appeared before the court through their counsel.

On 07.02.2018 R-1 filed the above referred explanation stating that he is still running from pole to pillar in search of the accused to whom he stood surety and prayed more time to secure the accused. He has also stated that he is a poor man and he is working as Coolie. He has submitted that he has already paid Rs.20,000/- before the court and as such he has prayed to take a lenient view against him.

R-1 and R-2 herein had stood as surety for A-2 namely Sabikul @Chanu in S.C.No.148/10 and they have executed surety bonds on 24.01.2011. As A-2 absconded a split up case was registered against him in S.C.No.162/12 and efforts were made to secure his presence. In spite of several attempts presence of A-2 could not be secured. Hence the bail bonds executed by A-2 and his sureties were forfeited and steps taken to recover bond amount from the sureties.

The materials on record indicate that at the time of executing the bond, R-1 has filed an affidavit claiming that he is the owner of property bearing Sy.No.31/3P9 measuring 12 cents situated in Amblamogaru Village of Mangaluru Taluk and executed a bond for a Rs.1,00,000/-. Further he has also produced a RTC of concerned land to support his contention. Thereby it becomes clear that there is no merit in the contention of R-1 that he is a poor man or that he is doing Coolie work.

More importantly, the explanation submitted by R-

1 makes it clear that he has failed to keep presence of A-2 before the court the in concerned proceedings, as undertaken by him. R-1 has not taken any step to secure A-2 and produce him before the court till this day. Hence this court does not find any valid reason to show any lenience to R-1. Hence the following order:

The prayer of R-1 to show leniency in recovery of surety bond amount is rejected.

Issue FLW to concerned Tahasildar for recovery of bond amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each from R-1 and R-2 and to deposit the same by next date of hearing."

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the present appellant is respondent No.1. The appellant is a coolie, who is sole bread-earner. The income generated from his coolie work is grossly inadequate to meet even the most basic necessities of life. The appellant filed the application seeking an order to take lenient view with respect to secure resources necessary to fulfil surety obligations. The appellant is a poor daily wage worker. He is having only 12 cents of land and he is unable to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. F