- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 10132 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10132 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SALENDRA SAHANI @ SONU SAHANI @ SANU SAHANI S/O GANGA SAHANI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT DASANAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 125. PERMANNT R/AT: MUSTAFAPUR, SURAJGARHA STATION, LAKHISARAI DIST. BEGUSARAI- BIHAR-851 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SPARSH SHETTY. ADV. FOR SRI. CHIRAG G.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. RANGASWAMY., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.43/2020 (ARISING OUT OF Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 10132 of 2025 CRIME NO.18/2018) OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 354(A), 354(B), 326 AND 307 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF OTHE HONBLE IX ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court, praying to enlarge him on bail in a case pending before the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, in S.C.No.43/2020. 2. First informant was constructing a house. On 08.01.2018, at about 10:30 a.m., when his wife was dampening the wall with water, at that time, accused came from behind, and held her and forced to co-operate with him seeking sexual favour. When she resisted, he assaulted her with tiles and iron rod and stabbed on her right hand, inflicting grievous injuries to her. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 10132 of 2025 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the offence committed by the accused is serious in nature. The trial is in progress and if at this stage, petitioner is granted bail, he may flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. No doubt, the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature. Disturbing fact is that, petitioner is in judicial custody since, 25.05.2019 and the trial has not been concluded till today. He is in judicial custody for nearly 6 years 4 months. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH V/S. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND ANTOHER reported in (2024) SCC 1693. Relevant paragraph is extracted here under: "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 10132 of 2025 the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." 5. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA V/s. K.A. NAJEEB reported in 2021 SC 712. Paragraph No.16 of the said judgment is extracted here under: 16. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial prisoners v. Union of India1 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an 1 (1994) 6 SCC 731 ¶ 15 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 10132 of 2025 individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail. 6. The victim is already examined in this case. Considering the length of incarceration of the petitioner, by imposing stringent conditions, relief sought in the petition can be granted. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) Petitioner / accused in Crime No.18/2018 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, pending in S.C.No.43/2020 on the file of the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, shall be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions: 1. He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37639 CRL.P No. 10132 of 2025 Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. He shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court, if there is change in the address. 3. He shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing without fail. 4. He shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 5. He shall not indulge himself in committing any offence. If the condition/s are violated, the prosecution or victim are at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30