- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34920 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1610 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M S PUTTASWAMY S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND PAINTER, R/O 1 CROSS, DURGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, NALLUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, 2. M. S. SHEKAR, S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND PAINTER, R/O UNDEDASARAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAN K N,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34920 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2025 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 SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 21.07.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.118/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner. 2. This order is challenged before this Court by the revision petitioners wherein, these petitioners have given a surety and executed a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- before the trial Court and when the accused No.1 and 3 did not appear before the Court, surety notice was issued and they took time before the trial Court to produce accused Nos.1 and 3, but the revision petitioners failed to produce the said accused Nos.1 and 3. Hence, the bond was forfeited and later on, the application is filed under Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court and the trial Court considered the said application in a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34920 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2025 lenient way. Though the counsel for the revision petitioners referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Kunju And Another vs State Of Karnataka reported in AIR 2000 SC 6 decided on 29 October, 1999, wherein the Apex Court has reduced 25% of the fine amount, the trial Court even further shown lenience in only ordering for 10% i.e.,Rs.20,000/-. Even in spite of it, the same was not paid by the revision petitioner. The order was also conditional order wherein, it is mentioned that in case if he fails to deposit the amount, the order stands automatically vacated and thereafter, appellants/sureties are liable to pay the entire bail bond amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-. The said order was challenged before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.118/ 2024 and the same is partly allowed by modifying the order of the trial Court in respect of accused No.3 is concerned. In respect of accused No.1, he was directed to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/-. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to show more lenience when the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34920 CRL.RP No. 1610 of 2025 order of the trial Court is very lenient in passing the order to pay the penalty to an extent of 10%, the question of reducing further does not arise. Therefore, I do not find any ground to entertain this revision and the revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20