Faizan Khan Alias MD Faizan Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

Faizan Khan Alias MD Faizan Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail application disposed of; petitioner(s) directed to appear and seek regular bail before the concerned Trial Court within three weeks, such application to be disposed of in strict compliance of the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil (2021 (10) SCC 773) and the observations in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452; no view expressed on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 341/323/417/498-A/506/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no. 2.

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the case and that there is no requirement of custodial trial of the petitioner, the Court, without expressing any view on the merit of the present case, directed the petitioner to appear and seek regular bail before the concerned Trial Court within three weeks, the application to be disposed of in strict compliance of the guidelines laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (2021 (10) SCC 773) and the observations in the 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452 order.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that there is no requirement of custodial trial of the petitioner, which formed part of its basis for disposing of the anticipatory bail application with a direction to seek regular bail.

Key takeaways

The anticipatory bail application was disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — matrimonial/dowry case — A.B.A. No. 10239 of 2023 (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Rajesh Shankar, J.), order dated 08/12.09.2024. Three related petitioners — Faizan Khan (husband), his father Hasib Khan and maternal uncle Suhtab Khan @ Tabrej Khan — apprehended arrest in an F.I.R. case under Sections 341/323/417/498-A/506/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the written report of opposite party no. 2, Shahjadi Khatun (wife); marriage performed on 29.05.2022; petitioner no. 1 has pending Original Matrimonial (Title) Suit No. 51/2023 (Family Court, Gumla) for restitution of conjugal rights in which she has not appeared. Held: considering the nature of the case and that there is no requirement of custodial trial of the petitioner, and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, the Court disposed of the application directing appearance before the concerned Trial Court within three weeks to seek regular bail, to be dealt with in strict compliance of the guidelines laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2021 (10) SCC 773 and the observations in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 10239 of 2023

Faizan Khan @ Md. Faizan Khan, S/o Hasib Khan

Hasib Khan @ Md. Hasib Khan, S/o Md. Subha Khan

Suhtab Khan @ Tabrej Khan, S/o Fajir Khan

All R/o Village-Budhipat, PO & PS -Bharno, District-Gumla

… … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Shahjadi Khatun, W/o Md. Faizan Khan, D/o Mohammad Khan, R/o Village-Budhipat, PO & PS- Bharno, District-Gumla

... … Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

----- For the petitioners : Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None

-----

08/12.09.2024 The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/417/498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband and the petitioner no. 2 is the father-in-law of the informant/opposite party no. 2, whereas the petitioner no. 3 is maternal uncle (mama) of the petitioner no. 1. It is further submitted that the petitioners have never made any demand of dowry nor have tortured the opposite party no. 2 for non-fulfillment of the same. On perusal of the written report of the informant/opposite party no. 2, it would appear that in the initial part of the same, she has narrated the incidence which occurred prior to her marriage with the petitioner no. 1, which has no relevance in the present context. Otherwise also, the offences

alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 341/323/417/498-A /506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also submitted that the marriage between the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 was performed on 29.05.2022. The petitioner no. 1 has been trying to save the matrimonial relationship with the opposite party no. 2, which would be evident from the fact that he has already filed Original Matrimonial (Title) Suit No. 51/2023 in the Family Court, Gumla for restitution of conjugal rights in which despite issuance of several notices upon the opposite party no. 2, she has not yet appeared. So far as the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the allegation made against them is false and concocted. Under the said circumstance, the petitioners may be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

4. Learned A.P.P opposes the petitioners’ prayer for

anticipatory bail.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that it is a case under Sections 341/323/417/498-A/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as that there is no requirement of custodial trial of the petitioner, without expressing any view on the merit of the present case, he is directed to appear and seek regular bail before the concerned Trial Court within three weeks, which shall be disposed of by the said Court in strict compliance of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Satender

A.B.A. No. 10239 of 2023

Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.” reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773 as well as the observation made in the case of “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452 .

6. The present anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

Manish

A.B.A. No. 10239 of 2023