IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1032 OF 2018
1. MOHAMMED SHADAB ALIAS RAJA
S/O. MOHAMMED VAKIL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
2. SMT. RUKHSANA,
W/O. MOHAMMED VAKIL,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
3. SMT. SHABANA PARVEEZ ALIAS ROJA
W/O. MOHAMMED YASEEN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
4. MOHAMMED YASEEN
S/O. MOHAMMED VAKIL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT
NO.8A, TANTHI BAGAN LANE,
RIPON STREET, KOLKATTA,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
CHANDI CHOWK ROAD,
(BY SRI S.P.S. KHADRI, ADV.)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY R.T. NAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
(BY SRI S. VISHWA MURTHY, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME
NO.302/2016 (C.C.NO.11527/2017) OF R.T. NAGAR P.S.,
BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 313, 323
506 R/W. SECTION 34 OF I.P.C. AND SECTIONS 3 4 OF
THE D. P. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1
to 4 in C.C. No.11527/2017 on the file of the IV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
2. Upon a complaint made by Smt. Kishwar Fatima,
the respondent – Police registered a complaint in Crime
No.302/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 406, 311, 313, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Police completed
investigation and filed charge-sheet without arresting the
accused. Column No.2 of the charge-sheet clearly shows
that these petitioners were not arrested by the respondent
– Police at the inception or during investigation. It
appears that the Magistrate has now issued warrants for
securing the presence of these petitioners, as they did not
appear before the Court. Therefore, this petition is filed.
3. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the
Magistrate did not issue summons at all. These
petitioners are residing at Kolkata and they did not know
that a complaint was registered against them and
consequently, the charge-sheet also filed. This is the
reason for these petitioners being unable to appear before
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits
that this is not a case for granting anticipatory bail, as the
petitioners did not appear before the Court responding to
5. In the light of above circumstances, I am of the
opinion that the apprehension expressed by these
petitioners that they are going to be arrested is
unfounded. When the respondent – Police did not arrest
these accused, after registration of the complaint or
during investigation, it means to say, the respondent –
Police did not think it necessary to arrest these
petitioners. Now, these petitioners want anticipatory bail
only because the Magistrate has issued warrants to secure
their presence. It is the duty of these petitioners to
appear before the Court. If they do not appear after
receiving summons, the Magistrate has to issue warrants.
If anticipatory bail is granted, it amounts to interfering
with the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in securing the
presence of the petitioners for the purpose of trial.
Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. However,
taking into consideration that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are
women; they may appear before the trial Court and apply
for grant of bail. In that event, the Magistrate Court can
consider it liberally.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.