High CourtsSingle Bench

Tahir Ahmed vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 9 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 MP CK 0054

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjuli Palo, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, 438(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 342, 376(2)(h), 498A, 506 · Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4 · Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Marriage) Act, 2019 — Section 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.38041 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 415 words

Anjuli Palo, J

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

T he applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.346/2021 registered at Police Station Talaiya, District Bhopal f o r the offences

punishable under Sections 376(2)(h), 506, 342, 498-A & 34 of the IPC, Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of the Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the

complainant on 09.10.2020. Neither the applicant nor his family members demanded anything as dowry. FIR has been lodged after delay of two

months. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to enlarge

the applicant on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Applicant is husband of the complainant. Their marriage was solemnized on 9th Oct., 2020. It appears from the record that there is some dispute

between the family of the applicant and the complainant. Further, when the complainant left the matrimonial house and after receiving notice of Talaq

from the applicant, only than an FIR has been lodged by the complainant with a delay of two months. Some copies of whatsapp chat between the

applicant and the complainant have been filed, which show that the complainant is willing to reside with the applicant, but due to certain dispute they

were have constrained relations. Except co-accused Gufran other accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court itself.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail, therefore, without

commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant - Tahir Ahmed shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for his appearance before him during the

course of investigation or before the trial Court during trial, as the case may be.

It is further directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions as enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.