"Custodial Interrogation Required"; Bombay HC Rejects Pre Arrest Bail To Man Accused Of Giving Triple Talaq To Wife [Read Order]

Justice SV Kotwal was hearing the pre arrest bail plea filed by one Ebrahim Lakdawala, in connection with case registered at Amboli police station for offences punishable under Sections 377, 498 A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 3 and 4 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

Case Background

According to the informant wife, the applicant had married twice earlier. He had five children from his first wife. After divorce from the first wife, he got married to the second wife and even she was divorced. The first informant got married to the applicant on September 7, 2018. At that time, her mother's 15 tola gold was given to her and Rs.3.5 lakh 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 an aluminium rod causing bleeding in her private parts.

Moreover, the applicant did not want a child from this marriage and there was a 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, an amount of Rs.4.8 lakh was given to the applicant but even then, he used to beat her.

On June 3, 2020, the applicant's daughter from previous marriage 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 the 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 the first informant's phone number. On this basis, the FIR was lodged.

Submissions

Advocate Masbah Solkar appeared on behalf of the applicant accused and argued that the FIR is based on false allegations. The first informant assaulted two minor daughters of the applicant and she 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.

On the other hand, Advocate Adil Khatri appeared for the informant wife and vehemently opposed the application. He 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 a 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. Now, 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, Adv Khatri argued.

Order

Court considered Section 7(c) of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 and observed-

"In this particular case, I found no reasonable ground for granting anticipatory bail to the present applicant. The allegations in the FIR are quite serious. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the first informant was harassing his minor daughters. The applicant protected them from the informant and therefore this false FIR was lodged. This is the defence which can be established during trial. The contention of the learned counsel for the informant that she endured all this harassment over some period to save her marriage is also not improbable.

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicant does not deserve protection of anticipatory bail. The applicant left her at her parental house. Her number was blocked by the applicant. This lends corroboration 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. 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 the applicant. In this view of the matter, anticipatory bail to the applicant cannot be granted."