Jumping bail automatically forfeits the accused’s bond without a separate forfeiture order.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 4, 5 and 18, sought regular bail in a sessions case arising from an alleged group assault on Maruthi, who later died from his injuries; the charges included offences under the IPC, including Section 302 read with Section 149.

Accused Nos. 4 and 5 had previously been granted bail by the High Court, and accused No. 18 by the trial court.

All three subsequently failed to appear, warrants were issued, and proclamation proceedings were initiated before their presence was secured and they were remanded to custody.

The petitioners sought another opportunity to participate in the trial on bail; the State opposed, relying on their prior absconding and breach of bail conditions.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court relied on Sadananda v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1985 KAR 2813, for the principle that jumping bail results in forfeiture of the bond without a separate order being necessary to effect forfeiture.

It also referred to Section 446(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which a court may remit part of a surety’s bond in appropriate circumstances, noting that there is no corresponding remission provision for the accused’s own bond amount.

The Court treated recovery of the earlier bond amount as a necessary condition of any renewed grant of bail.

The Court considered the petitioners’ prior failure to attend court, the resulting warrants and proclamation proceedings, and the seriousness of the alleged offences.

Although it found that the petitioners were not entitled to bail as of right after violating their earlier conditions, it exercised its discretion to give them another opportunity to participate in the trial outside custody.

In light of the bond-forfeiture principles, the Court required payment of the earlier bond amounts before release and imposed further conditions to address the risk of non-compliance.

Each petitioner must execute a fresh personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum and deposit the earlier bond amount before release; they must not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses.

The trial court was directed to issue release intimation or warrants to the prison authorities subject to deposit of the earlier bond amount, and the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail for any breach of conditions.