01Facts
The petitioner, Accused No. 3, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution arising from an alleged bank robbery involving theft of cash and gold ornaments.
pp. 2–3He had previously been granted bail, but later absconded, resulting in a non-bailable warrant and his return to judicial custody.
pp. 3–4The petitioner offered to pay the earlier bond amount; the State opposed bail, citing his prior bail violation, other pending cases, and risk of absconding or tampering with the trial.
pp. 3–4 · p. 6The petition sought bail in S.C. No. 20/2026, arising from Bevoor Police Station Crime No. 78/2020.
p. 202Issues
i.Whether the petitioner, having previously absconded while on bail, should be granted bail again, and whether payment of the earlier bond amount could be imposed as a condition
pp. 4–7ii.Whether the petitioner’s prior bail violation and other pending cases warranted rejection of his renewed bail application
p. 4 · pp. 6–703Law Applied
The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), under which it exercised its discretion to grant regular bail.
p. 2Relying on Sadananda v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1985 KAR 2813, the Court stated that jumping bail results in forfeiture of the bond without a separate order being necessary.
pp. 4–5It also referred to Section 446(2) Cr.P.C., which permits remission of part of a surety’s bond in specified circumstances, while observing that no corresponding remission provision applies to the accused’s own bond.
p. 5The Court treated recovery of the earlier bond amount as a necessary condition for considering bail again in the circumstances of this case.
pp. 5–6Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439Section 446
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 457Section 458Section 380Section 382Section 201
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25
04Reasoning
The petitioner’s prior absconding weighed against granting bail as a matter of right, and the State’s concerns were reinforced by the other pending cases and the petitioner’s residence outside Karnataka.
p. 4 · pp. 6–7However, the petitioner accepted responsibility for the earlier bond and agreed to pay its amount.
p. 6In the exercise of its discretion, the Court considered that granting bail would afford him another opportunity to participate in the trial, while imposing conditions intended to secure his attendance and protect the proceedings.
pp. 6–705Holding
The Court allowed the petition and directed the trial court to release the petitioner on bail
pp. 7–8subject to payment of the previous bond amount of Rs. 1,00,000, execution of a fresh personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties (one local), non-interference with prosecution witnesses, and not leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.
pp. 7–8Original Court PDF
ASLAM ALIAS ASLAM KHAN S/O MITHORIvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
