CRLP/7934/2019 of MAHABOOB KHAN PATHAN Vs STATE OF AP on 31 December 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C) to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.157 of 2019 of Ponnur Town Police Station, Guntur District.

3. The alleged offences against the petitioner are under Sections 498(A), 494, 506, 294(b) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1967 and under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant is the wife of accused No.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 28.01.2019 and out of their lawful wedlock she gave birth to a female child on 31.10.2019. As she gave birth to a female child, the petitioner and his family members demanded the de factocomplainant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards additional dowry. As she failed to bring the said additional dowry, they did not allow her to enter the matrimonial home. At the instigation of his parents, A.1 pronounced talaq to the de facto complainant in the presence of her parents. Thereafter, she received a photo from the whatsapp showing that the petitioner is with another lady. The parents of the de facto complainant gave Rs.90,000/- to A.1 to satisfy their illegal demand. Yet they did not stop the harassment. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no specific dates are given relating to the alleged harassment said to have been caused by the petitioner and his family members to the de facto complainant and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that it is specifically mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner and his family members demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry as the de facto complainant gave birth to a female child and that they harassed her in that regard. He further submits that even after payment of Rs.90,000/- to satisfy their demand, they continued to harass her. Therefore, in view of the nature of the offence and the seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner, he would submit that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. Perused the record.

9. A perusal of the contents of the FIR clearly reveals that as the de facto complainant gave birth to a female child on 31.10.2019, the petitioner and his family members demanded additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- from her parents, and as she did not comply with the said demand, they did not even allow her to enter the matrimonial home. The contents of the FIR further shows that the father of the de facto complainant paid Rs.90,000/- to A.1 and his family members to satisfy the said demand, yet A.1 and his family members insisted her to pay the amount as demanded by them. These facts prima facie show that the accusation made against the petitioner regarding the offence said to have been committed by him for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, is prima facie well founded. There are other allegations also relating to pronouncing of talaq and contracting another marriage, which are also serious in nature, and said allegations attract the offence under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Dt.31.12.2019 Akc

_____________________________________

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY