Delhi High Court - Orders
Shamshad vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 February, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3888/2020
SHAMSHAD ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Suhail Khan, Mr. Vishal Raj
Sehijpal and Mr. Puru Bhardwaj,
Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State
with SI Parmal Singh, PS - Okhla
Vihar Metro Station.
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate for
complainant with complainant in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 23.02.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode.
BAIL APPLN. 3888/20201. By this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.6/2020 registered at PS - Okhla Vihar Metro Station for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
2. The above noted FIR was registered on the statement of one Ms.Garima Jai Kishan @ Ilma claiming that she got married to the petitioner on 7th August, 2019 according to the Muslim customs and rituals in the presence of 15-20 people at Karan Palace Hotel, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Prior to marriage, the complainant embraced Islam while orally Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3888/2020 Page 1 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:23.02.2021 20:56:21 saying the Kalma, whereafter she got married to the petitioner. According to the complainant, after Nikah it was informed by the petitioner and his father that the situation in their house is not conducive, that they have to make arrangements and thereafter, they will take her to the matrimonial home from her parental house after a month. Complainant continued visiting her in-laws but she was not allowed by the in-laws and husband to enter the house. In this regard, the complainant lodged a complaint being FIR No. 159/2020 at PS - Shaheen Bagh under Section 498A on 30th July, 2020, which is pending investigation. The complainant further alleges that on 13th October, 2020, the petitioner sent her a message and called her at Sukhdev Vihar Metro Station at around 12.30 pm and demanded a sum of ₹20,000/- stating that he had to repay some loan. When the complainant refused to pay the money, the petitioner got angry and started abusing her, pronounced triple talaq and went away. She further states that at the relevant time, there was no other person present except the two of them. Based on her statement, the above noted FIR was registered. Statement of the complainant was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she not only repeated the version in the FIR, gave further detailed narration of various incidents which occurred during their relationship.
3. When this petition came up for hearing before this Court, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was opposed on the ground that the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation and has not given the relevant documents i.e. the original nikahnama, conversion certificate of the complainant and talaqnama.
4. Vide the order dated 7th December, 2020 as also 29th January, 2021, this Court found no merit in the claim of the State for the reason, as stated Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3888/2020 Page 2 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:23.02.2021 20:56:21 by the complainant herself, she got converted by reciting the Kalma orally, the triple talaq was pronounced orally thus there was no question of any conversion certificate or talaqnama being available and their recovery was not required to be effected. As regards the marriage certificate, the factum of marriage is not disputed between the parties and the complainant has asserted this fact categorically. The petitioner has also placed on record certain instagram messages sent by the complainant to the petitioner which show that the version of the petitioner appears to be plausible.
5. Further, as per the status report, it was stated that the petitioner had no residential address, hence it would be difficult to procure his presence during the investigation and in trial. Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit alongwith the copy of the rent agreement and the police verification report conducted, which indicates the present residential address of the petitioner.
6. Considering the nature of allegations as also the other attending circumstances including the instagram messages sent by the complainant to the petitioner and as the residential address of the petitioner has been verified, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO/IO concerned, further subject to the conditions that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed and in case of change of mobile number or the residential address of the petitioner, the same will be intimated to the Investigating Officer as also the learned trial Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
Signature Not VerifiedBAIL APPLN. 3888/2020 Page 3 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:23.02.2021 20:56:21 8. Petition is accordingly disposed of. 9. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. MUKTA GUPTA, J. FEBRUARY 23, 2021 PB Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 3888/2020 Page 4 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:23.02.2021 20:56:21