- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102126 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: PRAPHUL NARAYAN MALAVADAKAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ASHOK NAGAR, PARALI VAIJANATH, TAL/DIST. BEED-431515. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011, (BASAVESHWAR CHOWK POLICE STATION, NIPPANI). …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE PETITIONER ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED NO.5 IN S.C. NO.63/2018 ARISING FROM NIPPANI BASAVESHWARA CHOWK POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.84/2017 DIST. BELAGAVI WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKKODI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 454, 380, 397, 307, 332, 353 OF IPC R/W. SECTION 25(1)(A), 27(2) OF ARMS ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri Ram Parashuram Ghorpade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) by the petitioner – accused No.5 seeking to grant regular bail in S.C.No.63/2018 pending on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi arising out of Crime No.84/2017 of Basaveshwara Chowk Police Station, Nippani, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380, 397, 307, 332, 353, read with Section 25(1)(A) and 27(2) of Arms Act. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 24.08.2017 at about 2:15 p.m., the first informant being the police constable received a phone call stating that one Scorpio vehicle is parked suspiciously at Ramnagar of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 Nippani. Immediately, the first informant along with another police staff went to the spot and found one Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No-MH-19-BU-5459 was parked suspiciously with one of the accused on the driver seat infront of the house of one Jagadish. Hence, the complainant and another police staff asked the driver of the Scorpio vehicle to open the door. However, the driver did not open the door. Therefore, another police staff entered the vehicle through the cleaner’s door and took out the keys of the said vehicle. At that time the accused/driver of the Scorpio vehicle shouted as ‘police police’ and hearing the commotion, the accused who were inside the house of the Jagadish, came out and threatened the complainant and another police staff with pistol, assaulted them with hands and forced them to return the Scorpio vehicle ignition key. When people started to gather there, all the accused persons ran away from the spot. Hence, the first informant has lodged the complaint. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 4. During the course of investigation the petitioner – accused No.5 was arrested by respondent – Police and in turn he remanded to the judicial custody. 5. On 04.09.2019, this Court granted bail to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.101405/2019 with a condition that, he shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum. Later the petitioner – accused No.5 remained absent. Hence, non- bailable warrant was issued and thereafter he was secured and in turn he was remanded to the judicial custody. Therefore, the petitioner filed one more bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.5342/2024 before the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi and the same was rejected by the Trial Court on 02.08.2024. Hence, the petitioner – accused No.5 is before this Court. 6. It is urged in the bail application that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offences as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the crime. He undertakes to appear before the Trial Court on all - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 the hearing dates and further undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that, there are reasonable grounds to believe that accused has committed the alleged offences and he is a proclaimed offender, he has absconded for almost four years. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of the bail petition. 8. Perusal of the material on record, it shows that on 04.09.2019, the petitioner – accused No.5 was enlarged on bail by the this Court, subject to execution of a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum. However, during subsequent period, accused No.5 remained absent. Hence, the Trial Court issued non-bailable warrant on several occasions. However, accused No.5 did not turn up to the Court. Hence, a proclamation was issued against him. It shows that, it is a case of bail jump inasmuch as the present petitioner was granted bail by this Court and on subsequent dates, he remained absent, thus, the Trial Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 issued non-bailable warrant and also proclamation against the petitioner. 9. It is pertinent to note that whenever it is a case of jumping of bail by the accused whether there requires an order to be passed by the Court as to the actual bond or not was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sadananda v. State of Karnataka1. Wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has clearly held that jumping of bail automatically results in forfeiture of the bond and no separate order is necessary as to forfeiture of the bond amount is concerned. 10. Further, insofar as the surety is concerned, there is a provision under Cr.P.C. i.e., Section 446(2) of Cr.P.C. that the Court may order for remission of portion of the bond amount in the event the Court is satisfied that the surety did all his best to secure the presence of the accused, but he was unable to do so. But, similar provision is not available for remission of the bond amount insofar as the accused is 1 ILR 1985 KAR 2813 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 concerned. Therefore, the unequivocal bond is executed by the petitioner in favour of the State promising his presence before the Court till the bond comes to an end by process known to law. When such promise is broken, entirely on the acts that could be attributable to the conduct of the accused, there cannot be any other plea that the accused can raise insofar as the forfeiture of the bond is concerned. Therefore, this Court finds sufficient force in the arguments advanced by the learned High Court Government Pleader that in case this Court has to consider grant of bail again to the accused, one of the necessary conditions that would be imposed by this Court is recovery of the earlier bond amount. 11. Therefore, though it is not a case where accused No.5 is entitled to grant of bail as of right, especially when it is stated in the petition that he had not filed any other similar petition before any other Court for the same relief, this Court in the interest of justice is resorting to allow the bail petition by using the discretionary and special powers vested in this Court for affording one more opportunity for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 petitioner to participate in the trial by remaining outside Court on bail. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the earlier bond amount executed by him by virtue of the order dated 04.09.2019 in Crl.P.No.101405/2019. His submission is placed on record. 13. Thus, considering the gravity of offences, circumstances in which offences committed, position and status of the accused, likelihood of he fleeing away from the justice, repeating same offences, tampering with witnesses, character and antecedents of the accused, more particularly, the submission made by the counsel for petitioner the This Court is of the opinion that, this is a fit case to grant bail on stringent conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8033 CRL.P No. 102126 of 2025 ii. The petitioner – accused No.5 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum in S.C.No.63/2018 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi. iii. The petitioner shall deposit the earlier bond amount of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Trial Court before he released on bail. iv. The petitioner shall execute a fresh bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum. v. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. It is made clear that, the Trial Court shall issue release intimation for release of the accused, subject to condition that, he shall deposit the earlier bond amount, before issuance of release intimation to the prison. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entitle for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32