MOHAMMED YOUSUF Vs. SAHEEN TAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

(2.) The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the 12th ACMM, Bengaluru, in CC No.11853/2015 dated 11.2.2016. It is urged in the Memorandum of petition that the petitioner is arrayed as accused in the above said Criminal Case for the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He remained absent after taking bail. Particularly on 14.3.2016, he could not appear and also his counsel did not file exemption application to condone his absence. Hence, the trial Court has issued an NBW against him. On subsequent three hearing dates also, the accused could not be present in person and NBW was re-issued against him and notice to surety was also issued on 23.09.2016. Later he has appeared in person and he was directed to file fresh bail application as his earlier bail bond and surety bond was forfeited. The surety was also not served with the notice for cancellation of his surety bond. Without serving notice on the surety, the order canceling his bail bond and surety bond is illegal. Therefore, the petitioner claims for quashing of the said proceedings.

(3.) The impugned order which is passed in CC No.11853/2015 on 23.09.2016 is perused which reads as under: