Nawaz Khan S/o Gaffar Khan vs The State of Karnataka By its Police Town Manhalli Represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.72/2012 of Manhalli Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 497, 354, 511, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, The marriage of the complainant was solemnized with CW.6-Mohd. Ibrahim on 29.04.2012. Accused No.1 is the mother-in-law of the complainant and the petitioner is the relative of accused No.1. Accused No.1 had illicit relationship with accused No.2 namely, Nawaz Khan. Accused No.1 told the complainant to massage accused No.2 and he had outraged the modesty of the complainant in front of accused No.1. Accused No.1 had insisted the complainant to develop illicit relationship with accused No.2. When the complainant refused for the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 started ill-treating the complainant and by sharing common intention gave mental and physical torture and also burnt the hands of the complainant with hot spoon and even they have given threat to her life. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons. It is further contended that the charge sheet came to be filed after completion of investigation. The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and obtained bail. Thereafter, petitioner has not appeared before the Trial Court therefore, the Trial Court has split up the case against the petitioner and now NBW has been issued against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.

The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. The petitioner was enlarged on bail and as the summons has not been served to his address, he remained absent before the Trial Court. Ignoring the said fact, the Trial Court has issued NBW against the petitioner. It is also contended that since the bail application moved by the petitioner before the Sessions Court has been rejected, if the petitioner appears before the Trial Court, there is likelihood of he being taken to custody therefore, he may be granted bail. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that since the petitioner was absent and was not facing trial, the Trial Court has issued NBW against the accused. The petitioner herein is absconding since four years therefore, no leniency should be shown to him. It is also contended that, at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

I have perused the copy of the order sheet, complaint and report. As could be seen from the records, it appears that the split up case has been registered against the petitioner. As the notice issued to the petitioner has not been served on him, he did not appear before the Trial Court. Thereafter, NBW was issued on 07.05.2016. When the notice has not been served on the petitioner and when NBW has been issued against the petitioner, naturally petitioner apprehends that he may likely to be arrested and will be taken to custody. Apart from this, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail and if he is directed to appear before the Trial Court, it would enable the Trial Court to proceed with the matter by securing the presence of the petitioner on all the dates of hearing. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed.

The respondent-Police are hereby directed to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail, in the event of his arrest, for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions :-

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. The petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail.

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court and execute personal bond, surety bonds and furnish surety within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the Trial Court shall release him on bail and proceed with the trial.