BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
Ebrahim Mohd. Iqbal Lakdawala —Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra —Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application (ST) No.2224 of 2020
Decided on 21.10.2020
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 – Section 3 and 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 377, 498 A, 323, 504 and 506 – Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section 67 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Allegations of sexual atrocities and physical assault on wife – No reasonable ground for granting anticipatory bail to present applicant – Allegations in FIR are quite serious – Considering gravity of allegations, applicant does not deserve protection of anticipatory bail – He had divorced informant illegally in violation of provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 – There are serious allegations of inserting rod in her private parts – There are allegations that indecent photos and videos were recorded – This requires custodial interrogation of applicant – Anticipatory bail to applicant cannot be granted – Application rejected. (Para 8)
Result: Application rejected.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The applicant, Kailas Vyavahare, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a serious FIR involving multiple charges, including sexual offenses, harassment, and violations of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (!) (!) .
The FIR was lodged by the victim herself, alleging severe allegations such as unnatural sex, insertion of a rod causing injury, recording indecent photos and videos, and threats of viral dissemination (!) (!) .
The court noted that the allegations are serious, and the FIR contains grave accusations that require custodial interrogation of the applicant (!) (!) .
The applicant's defense included claims that the FIR was based on false allegations and that there was no need for custodial interrogation. The applicant also claimed to have protected the minor daughters from harassment by the complainant (!) .
The prosecution highlighted the gravity of the allegations, including violations of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and the illegal divorce in violation of its provisions. The court found no reasonable grounds to grant anticipatory bail, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence suggesting illegal divorce and harassment (!) .
The court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the allegations are serious, and the applicant's conduct (such as blocking the victim’s number and allegedly divorcing her illegally) supports the need for custodial interrogation (!) (!) .
The court also denied the applicant’s request to extend interim protection, reaffirming that the gravity of the case warrants no such relief (!) .
In summary, the court concluded that the allegations against the applicant are serious, and due to the nature of the charges and evidence, anticipatory bail was rightly denied.
JUDGMENT
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.—The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No. 416 of 2020 registered with Amboli Police Station, under sections 377, 498 A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 3 and 4 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
2. The FIR is lodged by the victim herself on 28/08/2020. She has stated in her FIR that, the applicant had married twice earlier. He had five children from his first wife. After divorce from the first wife, he got married to second wife and even she was divorced. The first informant got married with the applicant on 07/09/2018. At that time, her mother’s 15 tola gold was given to her and Rs.3,50,000/- were spent during marriage. The FIR further mentions that, the applicant gave some intoxicating drink to the first informant and in that situation took some photographs and recorded video of the first informant. The FIR further mentions that, the applicant had unnatural sex with her in October, 2018. He had inserted aluminium rod causing bleeding in her private parts. The first informant had gone to her doctor but did not tell her the real fact. The applicant did not want child from this marriage and there was quarrel between them. It is alleged in the FIR that, the applicant used to harass her and used to ask her to bring money from her parental house. According to the first informant, amount of Rs.4,80,000/-was given to the applicant but even then, he used to beat her. On 03/06/2020, applicant’s daughter came to reside with them. At that time, the applicant told the first informant to do all the work in the house. The first informant refused and then applicant assaulted her. On that day itself, the applicant gave her talaq. She was left at her parental house. He threatened her that, he would make all the videos and photographs viral. Thereafter, the applicant blocked first informant’s phone number. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.
3. Heard Ms. Misbaah Solkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri. R.M. Pethe, learned APP for the State and Shri.Adil Khatri, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the FIR is based on false allegations. The first informant assaulted two minor daughters of the applicant. The first informant always used to harass them. In July, 2020 also the first informant had assaulted one minor daughter, but at that time, NC was not lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that, there were Whatsapp messages sent by the first informant. These messages indicate that, she had no grievance against the applicant. She submitted that, if the allegations of unnatural sex were true, then such messages could not have been sent to the applicant. She submitted that, the applicant is in a much better financial position than the first informant, therefore it was highly improbable that, the first informant would have paid money to the applicant. She submits that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant, whom I heard in consonance with Section 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 submitted that, the averments in the FIR are absolutely true. As far as the incident of March, 2020 is concerned, the first informant had lodged report at the same police station. Even thereafter she continued residing with the applicant because she wanted to save her marriage. Triple talaq was given by the applicant. This is an offence under the said Act. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the complainant is being threatened by one powerful person who was known to the applicant and thus there is obvious effort to pressurise the victim. He submitted that, considering the serious allegations in the FIR, anticipatory bail could not be granted to the applicant.
6. Learned APP produced before me the statement
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.