SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mahaboobi vs State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2018





1. Mahaboobi
W/o Late Khaleel Khan
Aged about 62 years
Occ: Housewife.

2. Sardar Khan Razvi
S/o Late Khaleel Khan
Aged about 30 years

Both are r/at No.11074
3rd Division, 3rd Cross
Near ESI Hospital
B D Layout
Davanagere-577 001. … PETITIONERS

(By Sri C H Jadhav, Sr. Counsel
for Smt Rashmi Jadhav)


State of Karnataka
State by Women Police Station
Represented by its Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bangalore-560 001. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event
of their arrest in Cr.No.80/2017 of Women P.S., Davanagere
for the offences P/U/Ss 498(A), 302 and 304(B) read with
Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:


This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking

anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to

release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302,

304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in

respondent police station Crime No.80/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned senior

counsel appearing for the leaned counsel for the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the learned

High Court Government Pleader appearing for the


3. Learned senior counsel on the merits of the

case has submitted that even in the earlier bail

application it has been observed by this Court that no

overt acts are attributed against the petitioners-accused

Nos.2 and 3. Now the investigation is completed and

charge sheet is also filed. So far as the petitioner

No.2/accused No.3 is concerned, it is submitted that he

is residing separately from the other members of the

family. In this connection, he drew the attention of this

Court to the entries in the ration card. In respect of

petitioner No.1/accused No.2 he has submitted that he

is aged about 62 years. Hence, it is submitted that by

imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be

enlarged on bail.


4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted

that in the complaint as well as in the FIR the names of

these two petitioners are clearly mentioned. There are

allegations against the present petitioners. Earlier bail

petition has been already rejected. Referring to the

order sheet maintained by the trial Court he has

submitted that charge sheet has been filed showing

these two accused persons as absconding accused and

NBW is also issued. In view of these facts, petitioners

are not entitled to be granted with bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on


6. Earlier also the petitioners herein had

approached this Court in Crl.P.No.5894/2017. This

Court by its order dated 30.8.2017 considering the

merits of the case rejected the bail petition of the

petitioners herein observing that though no specific

overt act is attributed against the petitioners, since

petitioners have not co-operated with the investigation

officer for investigation they are not entitled to seek

relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

7. When this Court looking to the conduct of the

petitioners has already opined that since they have not

co-operated with the investigation agency they are not

entitled to anticipatory bail, petitioners have to

surrender before the concerned Court and make an

application seeking regular bail.

8. Therefore, petition is hereby rejected. In case

petitioners surrender before the Court below and makes

an application seeking their release on regular bail, the

concerned Court shall consider the same on priority and

to dispose of the same in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation