- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6750 CRL.A No. 90 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ S/O M.K. ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/119, SHANTINAGARA HOUSE, KAMALABETTU POST AND VILLAGE, VITLA MUNOORU, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 243. 2. RESHMA W/O MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-6-136/1, KANCHINARKA, PADAVIDRI, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 111. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP,. HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6750 CRL.A No. 90 of 2026 THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 449 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 495 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2025 AND 12.09.2025 IN CRL.MISC NO.529/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU D.K. AGAINST THE APPELLANTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard on office objections. 2. Same are over ruled. 3. The appellants have preferred this appeal as against the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru in Crl.Misc.P.No.529/2024 dated 02.08.2025. 4. On 02.08.2025 the trial Court has passed the following order: “Learned PP Present. R1 and R2 present. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6750 CRL.A No. 90 of 2026 Sri. AH advocate filed Vakalath for R3 and files Memo along with digital copy of orders of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.944/2022 dated 01.04.2025 stating petition against R3 (accused) is quashed. Perused the same and obeying the order the matter against R3 is hereby dismissed and closed. R1 and R2 and their counsel prays time to deposit the bond amount by 12.09.2025.” 5. The present appellants are the sureties to respondent No.3. Since the proceedings against respondent No.3 is quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.9444/2022 dated 01.04.2025, appellants No.1 and 2 need not to pay the bond amount. The trial Court has not assigned any reasons for recovery of the bond amount though proceedings against respondent No.3 is quashed. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6750 CRL.A No. 90 of 2026 The order passed by the trial Court as to the recovery of the bond amount from appellants No.1 and 2 is set aside. It is made clear that appellants No.1 and 2 need not pay the fine amount as per the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore in Crl.Misc.P.No.529/2024. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16