Dismissed

Sarfaraz Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2023MCRCA/837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court rejected the grant of anticipatory bail. The court held that the applicant's prima facie involvement in the offence negated the need for bail, regardless of arguments regarding compliance with Shariat law or the Supreme Court's observations in related precedents.

What did the court decide?

M.Cr.C.(A) is rejected and anticipatory bail is denied.

Sarfaraz Alam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 837 of 2023

¶5

Sarfaraz Alam S/o Shri Mohd. Syed Ali Aged About 40 Years R/o Village, Plot No. 99, Third Floor, Behind Apollo Hospital, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi 110025.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Jamul Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Shri A.K. Mishra, G.A. For Complainant : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

11.08.2023

¶14

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 159/2023 registered at Police Station Jamul, District – Durg (C.G.), for offence punishable under Section 3, 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage ) Act, 2019 (in short ' the Act').

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the applicant solemnised marriage with the complainant on 27.03.2016 as per Muslim law. Her parents spent 50 Lakhs in marriage. Before and after the marriage the applicant had relation with other girls. When she objected, she was

¶16

¶17

forced to vacate the house on 23.06.2018. Since then, she is living with her parents with her son. But looking to the future of her son, they used to meet like husband and wife from 2019 to 2023. Thereafter, all of a sudden on 11.01.2023, he stated before the Court that he has given Talaq to her on 04.06.2019, and completed the same on 01.07.2019 and 10.08.2019 which were never communicated to her. According to her, the applicant has given her Talaq-e-Biddat in a single day on 11.01.2023, therefore, she has lodged complaint. On the basis of complaint, the FIR has been registered.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has issued 1^st notice of pronouncement of divorce on 31.05.2019 through speed post as per the Shariat Law and sent demand draft of Rs. 17,000/- towards first installment of mehar which was delivered to complainant on 10.06.2019. subsequently on 10.07.2019 by execution of Talaqnama was taken place in presence of witnesses. Second notice of divorce was sent by registered post on 15.07.2019 which was returned back with the reason “left”. On 10.08.2019, the applicant pronounced final divorce and the notice was sent on 22.08.2019 which too was returned back with the reason 'unclaimed', as such the applicant has complied with Shariat Law, therefore, question of Talaqu-e- Biddat does not arise. He would further submit that there is delay in lodging the FIR and he has already been granted bail under 498 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, he may released on anticipatory bail.

¶19

On the other hand learned counsel for the objector and the State vehemently objected the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the formalities for Talaq-e-Hasan has not been complied with. Even otherwise whether Talaq-e-Hasan or

¶20

¶21

Talaq-e- Biddat has been complied is a matter of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under anticipatory bail application and it is for the prosecution to examine the allegation levelled agaisnt the applicant, therefore, the anticipatory bail application may kindly be rejected.

¶22

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shayara Bano vs. Union of India { reported in 2017 (9) SCC 1 } has finally concluded the issue and has examined the circular issued by All India Muslim Personal Law Board and other relevant provisions of Sharait Law and directed the Central Government to frame lagislature relating to triple talaq, on the basis of which the Act, 2019 has been enacted by the Central Government.

¶23

According to Section 7 of the Act, 2019 the offence is punishable under this Act shall be compoundable, at the instance of the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced with the permission of the Magistrate, on such terms and conditions as he may determine and maximum sentence which can be awarded for the offence is 3 years. While granting anticipatory bail this Court cannot examine the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶24

Considering the parameters for deciding the anticipatory bail as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ms. X vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Criminal Appeal No. 822-823/2023 decided on 17.03.2023 and looking to the prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, also considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shayara Bano (Supra) , so far as the ground raised by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to delay in FIR, it cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, the M.Cr.C.(A) is rejected. However, it is directed that the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made by this Court while deciding this anticipatory bail application.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶29

deshmukh

Sarfaraz Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarfaraz Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tilakram Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankesh Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omkar Lal Kareliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omkar Lal Kareliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh