Musadidak Qureshi vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 16217 MP

                                 1
 IN       THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                   ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57105 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
MUSADIDAK QURESHI S/O NOSHAD QURESHI, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE WARD
NO.11  JAHANGIR    WARD     ,TEHSIL  AND   P.S
RAHATGADH,DISTT-SAGAR (M. P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI S.K. PATEL - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S. RAHATGADH
DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI A.R. BAIN - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

This i s fi rst application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure as applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.695/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 of the Indian Panel Code and Section 4 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 registered at Police Station-Rahatgarh, District-Sagar (M.P.).

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. Case of applicant falls within 'A' category as described by Apex Court in Case of Satender Kumar

Antil Vs. Central Bureau Investigation in SLP (Cr.) No.5191/2021 order dated 07.10.2021. It is submitted that 'A' category of cases are those cases in which offence is punishable with imprisonment of seven years and said offences do not fall in 'B' and 'D' category as defined by Apex Court in that judgment. Considering the aforesaid, counsel for applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is submitted by him that if in all cases anticipatory bail is granted then purpose of the Act will be frustrated and there will be no check on pronouncing of talaq by any muslim husband. Muslim

husbands can pronounce Talaq upon their wives and purpose of Act will fail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

After grant of anticipatory bail, Investigating Officer does not become powerless to do investigation in the case. If accused who has been granted bail does not co-operate in investigation of case then said Officer is always at liberty to move to Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail for violation of conditions of anticipatory bail order.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the fact that offence is punishable with less than 3 years and categorization as has been done by Apex Court, I find it a fit case where benefit of anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicant. Application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant by the police in the aforesaid crime, applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety and security in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer

(Investigating Officer) for his regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :

1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him

2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4. The applicant shall not commit offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) SHABANA JUDGE shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=4bc06f2e678b75148b60bb7947ee9ffc5ed27ef1f43a5d4d93d2d13dda510735,

ANSARI pseudonym=B646F86821C200C9792A53984F1D0790135DE39A, serialNumber=8A5E15A33816E651B4DB52BF3225281EF6C191F68E5EBE90A6E101CF42422711, cn=SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2022.12.07 15:18:46 +05'30'