Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, INDU MALHOTRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Rahna Jalal - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala And Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 883 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5693 of 2020)
Decided on : 17-12-2020
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 – Sections 3, 4 and 7(c) – Anticipatory bail application – Triple Talaq and remarriage by son of appellant – Appellant as mother-in-law of second respondent cannot be accused of offence of pronouncement of triple Talaq under the Act as offence can only be committed by a Muslim man – Grant bail unless there are reasonable grounds to grant bail – All judicial discretion has to be exercised on reasonable grounds – Substantive condition in clause (c) does not deprive court of its power to grant bail – Parliament has not overridden provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. – There is no specific provision in Section 7(c), or elsewhere in the Act, making Section 438 inapplicable to an offence punishable under the Act – Power of court to grant bail is a recognition of presumption of innocence (where a trial and conviction is yet to take place) and of value of personal liberty in all cases – Liberty can be regulated by a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable under Article 21 – Writ court is even empowered to grant anticipatory bail inspite of a statutory bar imposed against grant of such relief. (Paras 4, 8 and 10)
(B) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 – Section 7(c) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail application – Triple Talaq and remarriage by son of appellant – Section 7(c) does not impose an absolute bar to grant of bail – On the contrary, Magistrate may grant bail, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting bail to such person and upon complying with requirement of hearing married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced – Legislature has not expressly barred application of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. – A statutory exclusion of right to access remedies for bail is construed strictly, for a purpose – Excluding access to bail as a remedy, impinges upon human liberty – There is no bar on granting anticipatory bail for an offence committed under the Act, provided that competent court must hear married Muslim woman who has made complaint before granting anticipatory bail – It would be at discretion of court to grant ad-interim relief to accused during pendency of anticipatory bail application, having issued notice to married Muslim woman – Order of High Court contains no reason why appellant was being denied anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail granted. (Paras 11, 12, 17, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, rejecting application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Originally, Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of Constitution was filed by two petitioners. The first petitioner is spouse of the second respondent, who has filed the complaint leading to the registration of the first information report. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. By an order of this Court dated 3 December 2020, Special Leave Petition was not entertained at the behest of the first petitioner and he was granted time to surrender before the competent court of jurisdiction and apply for regular bail. The issue which survives in the present appeal is whether the High Court was justified in declining the prayer for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant (second petitioner in the Special Leave Petition as it was originally filed).
Findings of Court:
In the event of arrest of appellant, she shall be released on bail by the competent court, subject to her filing a personal bond of Rs 25,000. The appellant shall cooperate in the course of the investigation by the Investigating Officer.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, rejecting the application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973[CrPC]. Originally, the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution was filed by two petitioners. The first petitioner is the spouse of the second respondent, who has filed the complaint leading to the registration of the first information report. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. By an order of this Court dated 3 December 2020, the Special Leave Petition was not entertained at the behest of the first petitioner and he was granted time to surrender before the competent court of jurisdiction and apply for regular bail.
3. The issue which survives in the present appeal is whether the High Court was justified in declining the prayer for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant (the second petitioner in the Special Leave Petition as it was originally filed). The marriage between the second respondent and the appellant's son was solemnized on 14 May 2016. They have a child who was born in May 2017. On 27 August 2020, the second respondent lodged a first information report, complaining of offences under the provisions of Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code[IPC] and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019[Act]. On 27 August 2020, the first information report, being FIR No 908, was lodged at North Parur Police Station, District Ernakulam Rural. Insofar as is material to the controversy in the present appeal, the FIR contains an allegation that on 5 December 2019, at about 2.30pm, the appellant's son pronounced talaq three times at their house. Following this, it has been stated, the appellant's son entered into a second marriage.
4. The Kerala High Court was moved with an application for anticipatory bail by both petitioners. The first application was withdrawn[B.A. No. 5748 of 2020, order dated 14.09.2020 (Kerala High Court)], apparently due to a lack of proper pleadings. The second application, it has been recorded by the High Court,[B.A. No. 5944 of 2020, order dated 09.10.2020 (Kerala High Court)] was not pressed since there was a chance of a settlement between the complainant and her spouse. Since no settlement occurred, the High Court was moved for grant of anticipatory bail.[B.A. No. 6981 of 2020] The Single Judge of the High Court, on 02 November 2020, while declining to grant anticipatory bail observed:
" If the prosecution case is correct, the 1st petitioner is now enjoying with his second wife when the matrimonial relationship with the de facto complainant is in existence."
The order of the High Court contains no reason why the appellant was being denied anticipatory bail.
5. We have heard Mr Haris Beeran, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel with Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, learned counsel for the second respondent; and Mr. G. Prakash, learned counsel for the State of Kerala.
6. Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel has submitted that the power of the court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC has been taken away by the provisions of Section 7(c) of the Act. Opposing this submission, Mr. Haris Beeran has argued that Section 7(c) of the Act provides no express prohibition on the exercise of the power of the court to grant anticipatory bail.7[We note that the appellant's counsel has placed reliance on the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court dated 3 August 2020 in the case of Nahas v. State of Kerala, B.A. No. 9163 of 2019 to support their submission.] This submission needs close scrutiny for the court to deduce as to whether the provisions of Section 7(c) would bar the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
7. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act provide as follows:
"3. Talaq to be void and illegal: Any pro
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
