SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

K.SREEDHAR RAO
Dr. A. Ebenezer – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.V. Nagesh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Mari Gowda, Addl SPP.

Order

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.— The peti-tioner is an accused in CC No. 18070/2001. On a private complaint, a

case is registered against the accused/petitioner for committing offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 and 313, IPC. The complainant/victim claims to be the wife of the petitioner, according to the complaint. After che-quered rounds of litigation before this Court and Apex Court, ultimately the Trial Court, after recording sworn state-ments, issued process against the petiti-oner for his appearance. On the date of appearance, the Counsel appearing for petitioner made an application for exemption under Section 317, Cr.P.C. alongwith medical certificate to show that the petitioner is admitted in hos-pital and he is under treatment. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejects the application on the ground that the other side opposes the applica-tion and thus directs issuance of N.B.W.

2. The Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Ruling of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Sheik Khasim B.I. v. State (FB)1, to bring home the point that even after filing of a charge sheet in respect of warrant issued by a Criminal Court, anticipatory bail could be gran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top