Bombay High Court: Sarang V. Kotwal, J., while denied bail on the light of giving divorce in violation of the provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
Applicant sought anticipatory bail for cases registered under Sections 377, 498 A, 323, 504, 506 of Penal Code, 1860, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
The victim in her FIR stated that the applicant had married twice earlier and had 5 children from his first wife. On obtaining a divorce from the first wife, he got married to the second wife.
When informant got married to the applicant, her mother’s gold was to her and Rs 3,50,000 were spent during the marriage. Further, the applicant gave some intoxicating drink to the first informant and in that situation took some photographs and recorded video fo the informant.
In the FIR, it was mentioned that the applicant had sex with her in October 2018. The applicant had inserted aluminium rod causing bleeding in her private parts as he didn’t want a child from this marriage.
It was also alleged that the applicant used to harass the victim and used to ask her to bring money from her parental house. On one particular day, the applicant told the first informant to do all the work in the house, which the informant refused to do so and hence she was assaulted by the applicant. On the same day itself, the applicant gave her talaq.
Informant was later left at her parental house and was threatened that all he would make all the videos and photographs viral.
In view of the above, FIR was lodged.
Misbaah Solkar, Counsel for the applicant, R.M. Pethe, APP for the State and Adil Khatri, Counsel for the complainant.
Section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which reads as follows:
“no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall be released on bail unless the Magistrate, on an application filed by the accused and after hearing the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting bail to such person”.
Bench found no reasonable ground for granting anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Informant’s counsel that she endured all the harassment over some period to save her marriage was also not improbable.
Considering the allegations, the applicant does not deserve the protection of anticipatory bail. The fact that the applicant was left at her parental house and her number was blocked, all of this corroborates to the allegations that, he had divorced informant illegally in violation of the provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
Allegations of inserting a rod in informant’s private parts and capturing indecent photos and videos require custodial interrogation.
Hence no anticipation bail was granted. [Ebrahim Mohd. Iqbal Lakdawala v. State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application (ST) No. 2224 of 2020, decided on 21-10-2020]