Back
Grants To Relatives Accused Of Instigating
In a notable decision, the granted to five family members accused of instigating a husband to divorce his wife through the pronouncement of . Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, presiding over a single bench, allowed the application filed under .
The case stems from an FIR registered at in Banaskantha district. The applicants—Rahimaben AbdulkariM Manasiya and four others—were booked under , along with . The Act criminalizes the practice of instant (), where a Muslim husband can divorce his wife by uttering “talaq” three times. The allegations against the applicants were that they supported and instigated the husband, who is the main accused, to pronounce talaq upon his wife.
Arguments from Both Sides
, counsel for the applicants, argued that was unnecessary at this stage. She submitted that the applicants had no and would cooperate fully with the investigation and trial. She further assured the court that the applicants would abide by any conditions imposed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, , opposed the bail application, citing the nature and gravity of the offence.
Legal Analysis and Precedents
The court, while exercising its discretion, relied on well-established principles from the Supreme Court. It cited the landmark cases of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011), Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), which lay down the factors to consider for : the nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the applicant, possibility of fleeing justice, and whether the accusations are aimed at injuring or humiliating the applicant.
The court made several key observations. It noted that the only allegation against the applicants was that of instigating the husband. The offences were not punishable with life imprisonment or death, and the applicants had no past criminal record. The court also recorded the assurance from the applicants' counsel that they would not .
Key Observations from the Judgment
“The only allegations against the applicants are of supporting accused No.1, who is a husband; the role attributed to the present applicants is of instigating accused No.1 – husband to give ‘talaq’ to the complainant.”
“The offences are not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty; the applicants have no past antecedents.”
“The learned advocate for the applicants has assured that the applicants will not and would be available during investigation as well as trial.”
Court’s Decision
The High Court allowed the application, directing that upon arrest or appearance, the applicants be released on furnishing a of ₹10,000 each with one of the like amount. The court imposed several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, appearing before the police station on , not tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission, and depositing passports if any. The court clarified that the investigating agency may still seek arrest if the applicants violate these terms, and that the trial court would not be influenced by the observations made in this bail order.
The decision provides relief to the accused relatives while reaffirming the principles governing in cases where the accused have limited roles and no previous criminal involvement.
