Habibullah Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 312 Chatt

                              1

                                                           NAFR
    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   MCRCA No. 304 of 2021
 Smt. Yashmeen Khan W/o Shri Habibullah Khan, aged about
  55 years, R/o D-50, Babji Park, Ring Road No.02, Bilaspur,
  District Bilaspur (C.G.)
 Sajiya Khan, D/o Shri Habibullah Khan, aged about 26 years,
  R/o D-50, Babji Park, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur, District
  Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                ---- Petitioners
                           Versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Officer In-charge, Police
  Station - Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.)
                                               ---- Respondent

And MCRCA No. 314 of 2021  Habibullah Khan S/o late Shri Abdul Hai Khan, aged about 64 years, R/o D-50, Babji Park, Ring Road No.02, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Petitioner Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Officer In-charge, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent And MCRCA No. 561 of 2021  Shaifullah Khan S/o Habibullah Khan, aged about 31 years, R/o D-50, Babji Park, Ring Road No.02, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

---- Petitioner Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through : Officer In-charge, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District Raipur (C.G.)

---- Respondent

For Applicants : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate in MCRCA No.304/2021, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate in MCRCA No.314/2021 and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate in MCRCA No.561/2021.

For Respondent. : Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate

General for the State.

For Objector : Mr. Kashif Shakeel and Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Order on Board 15/06/2021

1. The matter is heard through video conferencing.

2. Since, the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications arise out of

the same crime number, they are being heard and decided

by this common order.

3. These applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure have been filed by the applicants who are

apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime Number

16/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District

Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34,

506, 354, 377, 406 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 02.02.2021, the

complainant, who is wife of applicant Shaifullah Khan in

MCRCA No.561/2021, lodged an FIR against the present

applicants inter-alia alleging that the husband of the

complainant and his family members demanded car and

money from the complainant, used filthy language and also

threatened to kill her. It has been also alleged that her

husband had done unnatural sexual intercourse with her and

her father-in-law (applicant in MCRCA No.314/2021) used

criminal force on her with intention to disrespect her, tortured

physically and mentally by misusing the stridhan, whereas

the applicants (mother-in-law and sister-in-law) in MCRCA

No.304/2021 used to encourage the husband. Based on this,

offence has been registered against the present applicants.

5. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Sr. Advocate appearing in

MCRCA No.561/2021 submits that the applicant is innocent

and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He

further submits that the marriage of complainant solemnized

with the applicant in the year 07.10.2018, and due to some

matrimonial dispute she has been residing with her parents

from 09.02.2019. The complainant made a complaint in

police station on 18.11.2020 and the FIR was registered on

02.02.2021 with delay of about three months and no

plausible explanation has been offered in this regard. The

ingredients of complaint and FIR clearly demonstrates that it

is the complainant who does not want to reside with the

husband and his family members. There is only allegation

against the applicant and his family members & no disclosure

thereof. He also submits that a social meeting was also

convened to resolve the dispute, which was attended the

applicant and his family members (co-accused). Videography

of the meeting was also done, which was handed over to the

police. In this meeting, none of the allegation was made by

the complainant. He also submits that three round of

counseling was done in the police station and the applicant

and co-accused appeared in the same. There is every

possibility of reunion in the matter and the FIR has been

lodged just to substantiate the allegation so levelled against

the applicant and his family members. The matter is so

simple but it has been made complicated by the complainant.

Learned Sr. Advocate also submits that the applicant and co-

accused persons are not criminal. This is pure a family

dispute and there is no justification for custodial interrogation

in the matter. Therefore, the applicant may be granted

anticipatory bail.

6. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Sr. Advocate in MCRCA

No.314/2021 and Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned counsel in MCRCA

No.304/2021 have adopted the argument advanced by Mr.

Shrivastava, learned Sr. Advocate in MCRCA No.561/2021.

7. Apart from the argument so advanced, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat,

learned Sr. Advocate submits that there is exaggerated and

vague allegation against the applicant in MCRCA

No.314/2021. The documents filed by the Objector

(Annexure C/4 and C/5) do not pertain to this case.

8. As regards allegation of dowry raised by the complainant, Mr.

Gwalre, learned counsel in MCRCA No.304/2021 made

additional submission that the complainant herself has

admitted that her marriage was solemnized with the

applicant in MCRCA No.561/2021 according to Muslim custom

and there is no dowry system in her society. He also submits

that there is no specific allegation against the applicants. The

only allegation against the applicants is that they used to

encourage her (complainant's) husband. Learned counsel

placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and

another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and the decision of

this Court in the matter of Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State of C.G.

reported in 2006 (2) C.G.L.J. 1.

9. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General for the

State opposing the anticipatory bail applications submits that

after FIR, 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the applicant has been

recorded, according to which, she was subjected to cruelty

for demand of dowry. Her father-in-law has also touched her

body with intent to outrage her modesty. He also submits

that counseling was done in the matter but all the efforts

went into vain.

10. Mr. Shakil and Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for objector

strenuously objected the bail applications and submit that

the cruelty suffered by the complainant in five months'

married life has been narrated in the FIR. Whatever

happened to her, she has disclosed the whole truth before

police which was reduced in writing. Thus, it cannot be said

that the complaint was unadvocated which run to nine pages.

He also submits that three round of counseling was done in

the matter, in two counseling the applicants remained absent

and in one counseling they said that they will not take the

complainant with them. The complainant has lodged the FIR

putting her life at risk. Therefore, the anticipatory bail may

not be granted to the applicants.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material on record.

12. Marriage of the complainant - Mahrukh Khan @ Saba was

solemnized with Shaifullah Khan in MCRCA No.561/2021 in

07.10.2018. As alleged by the prosecution, the complainant

was harassed and oppressed by the applicants for demand of

car and money.

13. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh (supra)

held in para 4, which reads thus:-

"4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this Country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net."

14. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh

(supra), and considering the submissions made on behalf of

the applicants, quality of evidence and further considering

the fact that the complainant herself had left the matrimonial

house on 09.02.2019, this Court deems it fit to release the

applicants on anticipatory bail. Therefore, allowing the

applications, it is ordered that in the event of arrest by the

Arresting Officer or by the Court concerned, the applicants

shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond

for a sum of Rs.50,000/- - Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in

the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.

15. The applicants are directed to join the investigation

immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation.

They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated

in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

                                                        (Rajani Dubey)
PKD                                                          Judge