1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRL.P NO. 2497 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
DR. M SHYAM
S/O LATE MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NO 41/42 B 6TH CROSS
VEERA SAGARA MAIN ROAD
AMBA BHAVANI STREET
ATTUR LAYOUT, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE – 560064
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI:VISHNUMURTHY, ADV)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
AMRUTHHALLI P S BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH Court OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE – 560001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:S VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.115/2017 OF
2
AMRUTHAHALLY POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 506 OF
IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The
petitioner and his mother approached the Sessions Court by
filing Crl.Misc.No.1351/2017 seeking interim anticipatory bail.
At initial stage on 17.02.2017, the Sessions Court granted
interim anticipatory bail. Again, it was extended on
13.07.2017. At a subsequent stage, while deciding the
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition on merits, the Sessions Court
dismissed the petition making certain observations at
paragraph No.9 of its order. Therefore, the petitioner is
before this court.
2. A complaint is registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
The allegation is that the petitioner used to harass his wife.
3
3. It is now submitted by the learned High Court
Government Pleader that the Magistrate issued summons to
the petitioner after charge sheet was filed. Therefore, the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail
apprehending arrest. He also submits that ordinarily if once
the Magistrate issues summons, the accused will not be taken
to custody.
4. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion
that especially when the petitioner had the benefit of interim
anticipatory bail and the same is shown in the charge sheet,
the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that he will be
taken to custody once he appears before the Magistrate is
unfounded. Ordinarily, no Magistrate takes accused to
custody once he responds to summons and promptly appears
before the Court.
5. In this view of the matter, I do not find that the
fear expressed by the petitioner that he will be taken to
custody can be considered to grant anticipatory bail. The
petitioner is at liberty to appear before the Magistrate and
4
apply for bail. The Magistrate shall consider the same in
accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*bgn/-