1 IN THE 1-UGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7111 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.10127/2011 BETWEEN: Smt. Savita, D/o. Rarnachandra Chandar Sanadi, After marriage, Srnt. Savita, W/o. Devendra Naik, Age: 26 years, 0cc: Household work, Rio. Malgaon, Taluk Miraj, District Sangli, Maharashtra State. . . . Petitioner (By Shri. Santhosh B. Malagoudar, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Through P.S.F Athani P.S., Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court building, S.P.P. Office. Dharwad. . . . Respondent (By Shri. Anand Kurnar Navalgimath, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to grant anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest or detention in connection with Crime No.429/2010 of Athani Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In spite of several opportunities having been granted, the Government Pleader has not been able to file statement of objections. Hence, the petition is considered on the averments in the petition. 2. The facts as evident from the reading of the petition is that one Smt. Balabai Parameshwar Kanagale had filed a comp’aint before the Athani Police Station on 08.12.2010, that she resides with her husband Parameshwar at Bommnal village along with her seven daughters aged between 20 to 4. One of the daughters’ Sangeeta aged 17 was missing since 17.12.2010. The complainant claims that the petitioner herein, Smt. Ssavita and one Masayi, own lands adjoining the lands of the complainant and residing in the respective farm houses and that they knew each other and had a cordial 3 relationship with each other. It is the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner and accused No.2 had come to their house on 17.12.2010 and induced Sangeeta to accompany them and since that day Sangeeta was missing. It is her suspicion that, she was instrumentally in taking her away and had secreted her in some place. Though initially the petitioner is said to have assured the complainant that she will be brought back to her home, they failed to do so. It is only thereafter, the complainant thought it fit to lodge the present complaint, which is almost three weeks after the alleged incident It is on that basis that the Police have registered a case and investigated the same. The petitioner on apprehension of arrest, had approached the Court below for anticipatory bail. The Court has rejected the same on the ground that the complaint has made out serious allegations against the petitioner and that the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail at this point of time and that she must make herselfavailable for investigation and so on. 3. Going by the above facts and circumstances, and given the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, the mere 4 allegation of the complainant that the petitioner was instrumental for the disappearance of her daughter, cannot be readily acceptable. The same would be the subject matter of further investigation and trial. At this point oftime, however, if the petitioner is arrested and remanded to judicial custody, this would result in peat hardship. Therefore, in the event, that the petitioner should be arrested she shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: I) She shall furnish a personal bond for a sum oftO,000/- each with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2) She shall make herself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purposes ofinvestigation. 3) She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court. 4) Sheshallnotseektoinduceorthreatenthe prosecution witnesses. 3 5) She shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. 6) The petitioner shall approach the Court below for regular bail within a period of eight weeks. Sd! JUDGE Rsh