SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammed Shadab vs The State Of Karnataka By on 26 March, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1032 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

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,
WEST BENGAL.

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
CHANDI CHOWK ROAD,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 001.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.P.S. KHADRI, ADV.)
2

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY R.T. NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENT

(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:

ORDER

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.
3

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
4

reason for these petitioners being unable to appear before

the Court.

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

summons.

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.
5

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.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kvk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 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