- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2444 WP No. 100831 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100831 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: REHAMAN SAB, S/O. GOUSUSAB TALAKAL, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. HITNAL, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-581212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBHASH J.BADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY KUSHTAGI EXCISE RANGE, KOPPAL, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER DATED 26.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT KOPPAL IN CRL. MISC. 612/2023 FOR ISSUING THE ATTACHMENT OF WARRANT AGAINST THE PLEDGED PROPERTY AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PROCEEDING IN CRL. MISC. 612/2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:56 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2444 WP No. 100831 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent-State. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 3. The surety bond furnished by the petitioner to secure the presence of the accused was forfeited on the ground that the accused had remained continuously absent. Consequently, a criminal miscellaneous case, Crl. Misc. Case No. 6123/2023, was registered against the petitioner and the accused to determine the penalty payable by the accused. The petitioner filed an application under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking a reduction of the penalty, stating that despite making several efforts, the accused could not be traced. 4. The petitioner contends that the learned Sessions Court, without considering the application and without determining the penalty to be paid by the petitioner, passed an order directing the Tahsildar to attach the petitioner’s property. 5. Section 446 of Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure for the forfeiture of bonds. Sub-section (3) of Section 446 states that the Court may, after recording its reasons, remit any portion of the penalty and enforce payment only in part. In the present case, the learned Sessions Court, without passing an order on the petitioner’s application for a reduction of the penalty, proceeded to issue the impugned order. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2444 WP No. 100831 of 2025 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 6123/2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Sessions Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 26.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. No.612/2023 by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Koppal, is hereby quashed. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27