IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9143/2017
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.
(BY SRI.M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADV.)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY WOMEN’S POLICE STATION
REP. SPP. HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
(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:
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
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
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
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.