FAHEEM AHMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions have been filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 554/2022 under Ss. 323/354/354B/376/34 IPC registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State duly assisted by the counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the status report filed by the state.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the story narrated in the FIR is false and frivolous. He further submitted that there is a family dispute and various civil suits with regard to property are pending. He further submitted that, in order to grab the share of the present petitioners, the respondent no. 2 at the instance of her husband lodged the present FIR against the petitioners. He further submitted that there are inconsistencies in the statements of the respondent no.2 as initially the FIR was registered under Ss. 323/354/354B IPC but the allegations under Sec. 376 IPC were added only after the further improvements made by the respondent no. 2 in her Statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. which clearly shows that they are the afterthought. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and no recovery is to be affected from them. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to join the investigation as and when required by the IO and there are no chances of the petitioners' absconding or tempering with the evidences.