Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)
Shailendra Shukla, J.
Rafique Ahmed & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.17691 OF 2020
Decided On : 08-07-2020
Anticipatory Bail - Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants based on the absence of physical cruelty, the belated filing of the FIR, and the impossibility of demanding dowry after divorce.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed for anticipatory bail as they were apprehending arrest in connection with a case involving offenses under the Indian Penal Code, Dowry Prohibition Act, and The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The complainant alleged that her husband pronounced Talaq thrice on the telephone and an FIR was lodged against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 are applicable only against the husband and not against in-laws. It also noted the absence of physical cruelty and the belated filing of the FIR. The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants without making any opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the allegations of demanding dowry after divorce, the absence of physical cruelty, and the belated filing of the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the impossibility of demanding dowry after divorce, the absence of physical cruelty, and the belated filing of the FIR as key factors in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants and directed their release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond. The applicants were also required to appear before the Investigating Officer and assist in the investigation process.
ORDER
1. This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicants namely; applicant No. 1-Rafique Ahmed, applicant No.2-Raeesa Bi and applicant No.3-Mohd. Raza as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.391/2020 registered at Police Station-Vijay Nagar, District-Indore (MP) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
2. On the last occasion, learned counsel for the objector had submitted that she would file certain documents and now the aforesaid documents are placed on record.
3. Submissions were heard.
4. As per prosecution story, Nikah of complainant took place with Hasan Multani on 03.11.2019 (complainant's husband). However, it appears that some dispute arose due to which she came back/turned out and the complainant started staying in her parental house. As per complainant, on 29.03.2020, her husband pronounced Talaq thrice on telephone and thereafter on 13.04.2020, an FIR was lodged by the complainant against her husband.
5. Learned senior counsel for the applicants has invited the Court's attention towards the complaint filed by husband fearing some action on the part of complainant and this complaint of husband was filed on 21.03.2020. The document which the complainant has filed is an application made to the Superintendent of Police, Indore, requesting immediate arrest of the applicants in this matter. This document is dated 15.06.2020. Learned senior counsel submits that the applicants have filed the anticipatory bail application on 10.06.2020 and this application has prompted the complainant to file the application which is dated 15.06.2020.
6. Learned counsel for the objector as well as learned counsel for the State have read over the FIR and stated that after the Nikah when the complainant got pregnant her mother-in-law i.e. applicant No.2-Raeesa Bi started alleging that complainant got pregnant much earlier and the child does not belong to her son and started asking for money saying that the complainant has not given enough dowry to the applicants and, thus, as per complainant, demand of dowry was the main factor.
7. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that as per complainant due to her early pregnancy her character was being doubted and the marriage was annulled by her husband then how the demand of dowry could have been made after pronouncement of divorce ? He further submits that FIR has been lodged more than a month after the complainant went back to her parental house.
8. Heard both the learned counsel including the learned counsel for the complainant/objector.
9. The provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 are applicable only against the husband and not against in-laws. It is clear that there is no physical cruelty and it also appears that early pregnancy became the cause of dispute and as per complainant there was a telephonic call in which husband of the complainant has sought to terminate the marriage.
10. There appears to be substance in the submission that demand of dowry after pronouncing divorce is not possible.
11. Looking to all these factors, along with belated FIR, a case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, but without making any opinion on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicants namely; applicant No. 1-Rafique Ahmed, applicant No.2-Raeesa Bi and applicant No.3-Mohd. Raza are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants in connection with the aforesaid crime number, the applicants shall be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one local solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer. The applicants shall appear before th
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
