Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SECOND JUDICIAL ERROR

37. Another judicial error committed in this case was by the learned Sessions Court. While adjudicating the interim bail application of accused Mr. Maksood, certain facts of the case were mentioned incorrectly, and absolutely contrary and imaginary to the contents of FIR. In this regard, the relevant portion of order dated 23.11.2022 passed by learned Sessions Court is extracted hereunder:

39. Further, the learned Sessions Court also fails to take note of the fact that the first husband of the prosecutrix was alive, and rather an agreement dated 18.04.2012 had been filed on record by the accused alongwith his interim bail application which mentions that previously also, the accused and prosecutrix had lived together for a long period of time after getting married to each other, and the husband of the prosecutrix was alive and was working in Delhi and that the prosecutrix did not want to live with him though he was ready to take care of her and the children. Had the learned Sessions Judge noted the correct facts, the genuineness of marriage on the basis of which interim bail was granted to the accused, would have been revealed. The learned Sessions Judge would have noted that the parties could not have been validly married and that there was no document of divorce of the prosecutrix on record. The detailed observations in this regard have been recorded in succeeding paragraphs.

41. These lies have been highlighted in the succeeding paragraphs.

Alleged Compromise Deed Executed in 2012

42. An interesting aspect in this case emerges from the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Maksood, at the time of hearing of interim bail application before the learned Sessions Court, that he and prosecutrix Ms. ‗M' had been in a live-in-relationship between the period 2007 to 2012, after which they had executed a compromise deed and separated from each other, for a few months.

48. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that even though Ms. M had got married to Mr. Maksood after converting her religion, as claimed before this Court, ten days after the FIR was registered in this case, Ms. ‗M', however, had misguided the police as well as the Courts by not informing them about the factum of their marriage.

49. The story further took a different turn altogether on 20.12.2022, when during the course of hearing of extension of interim bail application of accused, Ms. ‗M' admitted before the learned Sessions Court that she had got a false FIR registered against Mr. Maksood, and that she had misled the Court earlier at the time of adjudication of anticipatory bail of Mr. Maksood by not informing the Court that she had already got married to him.