SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shri Adit Kotak vs State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9143/2017
BETWEEN:

1. SHRI ADIT KOTAK
S/O SHRI. MUKESH KOTAK,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

2. SHRI. MUKESH KOTAK
S/O SHRI. GOVINDLAL KOTAK
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

3. SMT. ANJU KOTAK
WIFE OF SHRI. MUKESH KOTAK
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

4. MS. HITESHI KOTAK
D/O MUKESH KOTA

ALL ARE R/AT NO.1102, 1ST FLOOR,
35D CROSS, 26TH MAIN 4TH T BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 004.

… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY WOMEN’S POLICE STATION
2

PADESHWAR, MANGALORE.
REP. SPP. HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.69/2017
OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, D.K. FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A),323,504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.
4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

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, 323, 504 read with 34

of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

registered in respondent police station Crime

No.69/2017.

3

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

3. The petitioners have directly approached this

Court without approaching the Sessions Court. It is no

doubt true, looking to the provisions of Section 438 of

Cr.P.C., there is a concurrent jurisdiction to the

Sessions Court as well as to this Court. Apart from

that, it is a long standing practice that firstly they have

to exhaust the remedy before the concerned Sessions

Court, then to approach this Court.

4. Even though as per the Statute this Court is

having concurrent jurisdiction, but this Court is

burdened with so much of other matters, hence, I am of

the opinion that petitioners have to exhaust the remedy
4

before the concerned Sessions Court. Accordingly,

petition is hereby rejected.

However, learned counsel for the petitioners has

filed a memo dated 08.01.2018 praying the Court to

return the original document as per Annexure-H

produced in the case.

Hence, office is directed to return the original

document as prayed for by the learned counsel for the

petitioners by obtaining the Xerox copy of the same to

keep the records straight.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh