While rejecting a pre-arrest bail application of a man, accused of giving triple Talaq to his wife, the Bombay High Court observed that serious allegations were levelled against him like threatening the informant-wife and inserting a rod in her private parts, his custodial interrogation was required.
This order was passed by Hon’ble Justice SV Kotwal when the bail application of the applicant who was charged under Sections 323, 377, 498A, 506 and 504 of IPC, Section 67 of the I.T Act and u/s 3,4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 came up for hearing.
The applicant had married twice earlier:-
As per the informant-wife, the applicant was married twice earlier and had 5 children from his first wife.
After divorcing his first wife, he got married again but the second marriage also ended in a divorce.
Thereafter, the applicant married the informant-wife in September 2018, and three and a half lakhs were spent on the wedding, and the wife’s mother had also given 15 tola gold to the informant wife.
It is alleged that the applicant gave an intoxicating drink to the informant and proceeded to take objectionable photographs of her.
The FIR also states that the applicant had unnatural sex with the informant in 2018 by inserting an aluminium rod in her private parts.
As per the informant, the applicant did not want any children and used to beat her up for dowry as well. Even after 4.8 Lakh, Rupees were given to the applicant as additional dowry; he continued to thrash the informant.
On 3.06.2020, the applicant’s daughter came to reside with the applicant and the informant and the applicant told the informant to do all the household work.
When the informant refused, she was assaulted and was given Talaq and the applicant threatened that he would make the objectionable videos and photos viral.
Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the informant-wife.
False allegations are made against the applicant: Counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the FIR was based on false allegations and that the informant used to harass the applicant and had also assaulted his two minor daughters.
On the other hand, counsel for the applicant opposed the bail application and contented that the informant had complained in March 2020 as well. Still, she continued to reside with the applicant to save her marriage.
It was further argued that an influential person was threatening the informant at the applicant’s behest, and it is evident that the applicant was trying to pressurise the victim.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court:-
Hon’ble Court considered Section 7(c) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 and held that:-
There was no reasonable ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant due to the nature of the allegations.
The Court opined that the applicant’s contention that the FIR was lodged because he was trying to protect his minor daughters from harassment by the informant is something that the Trial Court will look into.
It was noted that the informant’s contention that she continued to live with the applicant to save her marriage was not improbable in Court’sopinion.
The Court also remarked that the fact that the applicant blocked the victim’s number seemed to corroborate the allegation that he had divorced the informant illegally.
Thus, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Court.
Title: Ebrahim Mohd. Iqbal Lakdawala vs The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2224 of 2020
Date of Order:21.10.2020
Coram: Hon’bleHon’ble Justice Sarang V. Kotwal