- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42912 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1554 OF 2025 BETWEEN: VIJAY S @ CHINNU S/O LATE SURESH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/A NO. 13, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BYLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 011. (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) ALSO R/AT NO.54, KAVERAMMA TEMPLE STREET, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGAR 1st PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 012. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASANNA RAO R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE DCP WEST DIVISION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. MADHU D S., PSI KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42912 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025 BENGALURU 560001. 3. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANNA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.09.2025, PASSED BY THE HONBLE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, DCP WEST DIVISION, BENGLURU CITY IN MAG CASE NO.41/2025. B. CONSEQUENTLY PRAYS TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER FROM JUDICIAL CUSTODY WITH A DIRECTION TO 3RD RESPONDENT IN MAG CASE NO.41/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, DCP WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42912 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 04.09.2025 passed by Special Executive Magistrate, DCP West Division, Bengaluru City, in Case no.CRM/MAG/41/DCP(W)/2025, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Prasanna Rao R., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on 28.01.2025 a PAR Case no.1/2025 was registered against petitioner on ground that petitioner was a "B" Rowdy-sheeter involved in various cases of murder, attempt to murder etc., and categorized as a habitual offender. On 29.01.2025, petitioner appeared before respondent no.1 and furnished bond for Rs.1,00,000/- in default of keeping good behavior. 3. On 28.03.2025, Crime no.65/2025 was registered by Kalasipalya Police Station for offences under Sections 118 (1), 352, 115 (2) and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS', for short). On 19.05.2025, Crime no.83/2025 was registered by V.V. Puram Police Station for offences under Sections 118 (1), 351(1), 351 (2) read with 3 (5) of BNS. In both said cases, petitioner was arrayed as an accused. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42912 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025 4. Alleging violation of condition of bond by petitioner, PSI, Kalasipalya Police Station filed application under Section 141 (1) (b) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', for short). On 04.09.2025, respondent no.1 passed impugned order for forfeiture of bond amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, directing petitioner to pay same and in default to recover same by proceeding against his properties, apart from ordering for detention of petitioner in judicial custody till remainder of bond period i.e. until 28.01.2026. Aggrieved thereby, present revision petition was filed. 5. It was submitted that impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity. It was further submitted, no reasons were assigned for dispensing with procedure contemplated under Sections 134 and 136 of BNSS, calling for interference by this Court. 6. It was submitted, subsequent crimes were registered against petitioner by persons inimical to petitioner with intention to subject him to detention. Such being case, submitted order for proceeding against petitioner's properties in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42912 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025 default of payment of bond amount was excessively harsh and prayed for allowing petition. 7. On other hand, Smt.Anitha Girish N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents - State opposed petition. Admittedly, petitioner had involved himself in criminal activities despite giving bond for good conduct. In view of above, passing of impugned order by respondent no.1 was in tune with provisions of Section 141 of BNSS and sought dismissal. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. 9. This revision is against an order forfeiting bond amount on ground of violation with condition in bond. 10. There is no dispute that on 28.01.2025 petitioner had tendered bond for Rs.1,00,000/- before respondent no.1, for good behaviour in Case no.CRM/MAG/41/DCP(W)/2025. There is also no dispute about registration of Crime no.65/2025 by Kalasipalya Police Station and Crime no.83/2025 by V.V. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42912 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025 Puram Police Station during period of undertaking, which amounted to violation of condition in bond. 11. Though, respondent no.1 has resorted to Section 141 (1) (b) of BNSS to order forfeiture of bond amount and for imprisonment till expiry of period of bond, Section 142 (9) of BNSS empowers this Court to cancel or vary such conditions in bond for sufficient reasons. 12. Admittedly, order of forfeiture of bond is required to be preceded by an enquiry affording opportunity. Though notice appears to have been given, it is recorded by respondent no.1 that petitioner failed to file explanation and proceeded to pass impugned order. Thus there appears substance in petitioner's contention about lack of adequate opportunity. 13. Apart from above, order for forfeiture of Bond amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and detention of petitioner for remainder of period of bond appears to be excessively harsh, calling for invocation of Section 142 (9) of BNSS to modify conditions of bond as would secure ends of justice. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42912 CRL.RP No. 1554 of 2025 14. Same would be in tune with ratio laid down by High Court of Bombay in Balraj S. Kapoor v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 365 and High Court of Rajasthan in Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1982 Crl.L.J. 2333, which have held that Court can remit a portion of penalty invoking its discretionary power under Section 514 (5) of 1898 Code (corresponding to Section 446(3) of CrPC, 1973 and Section 142 of BNSS) so long as payment of any portion of penalty remains unenforced. 15. In view of above legal position, Revision Petition is allowed, order for detention of petitioner for violation of condition with bond for good behavior furnished in Case no.CRM/MAG/41/DCP(W)/2025 on file of respondent no.1 is modified and reduced to forfeiture of Rs.30,000/- and furnishing of personal bond for like sum before respondent no.2 for remainder of bond period. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37