JUDGMENT

Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2019 and 09.03.2020 directing to issue NBW to the petitioner who is accused No.9 in C.C.No.7559/2019 on the file of IV ACMM, Bengaluru for the alleged offences 3 WP.No.11781/2020 punishable under Sections 120(B), 201, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The said NBW was re-issued on 31.10.2019. However, the same could not be served. Hence, once again on 09.03.2020, NBW was issued with a proclamation that accused No.9 therein and the petitioner herein was absconding. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Sri Gowtham Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for Sri Suyog Herele E., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate ought not to have issued NBW at the first instance since the additional charge sheet in terms of which accused No.9 was brought on record was filed on 19.09.2019 and the next date was 04.10.2019. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in

3.1. Inder Mohan Goswami and another versus State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 more particularly a