ISMAIL BADARKHAN MALEK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant has filed this Application under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being 11191008230073/2023 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n), 365, 366, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Soeb R. Bhoharia for the Applicant. He submitted that the investigation of the offence is over and the chargesheet is filed. It is submitted that the present Applicant happens to be the husband of the first informant. The marriage between the Applicant and the first informant was having some troubles and the first informant had lodged several FIRs against the present Applicant as well as his family members. The present Applicant had also in turn lodged an FIR against the first informant alleging offences punishable under Ss. 379 and 384 of the IPC. The first informant had thereafter approached the learned Sessions Court as well as this Court praying for anticipatory bail in the said offences. This Court had dismissed the Application filed by the first informant seeking anticipatory bail and, on the very next day, the first informant has lodged the present FIR with concocted facts. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has further submitted that prior to the present FIR, the first informant had lodged a similar FIR against the present Applicant as well as his family members. In the said FIR the Applicant has been ordered to be enlarged on Regular Bail whereas this Court has protected the other family members of the present Applicant. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are far from true and highly unreliable. The learned Advocate for the Applicant has also submitted that prior to the lodgement of the present FIR, the first informant had submitted an application to the concerned Police Station alleging physical and mental harassment against the present Applicant as well as his family members. In the said Application, the first informant has not stated anything about the instances alleged in the present FIR nor has she uttered anything in that regard in the Application for anticipatory bail filed by her before this Court. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the Applicant are not true. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and grant bail to the present Applicant subject to suitable conditions.

(3.) Learned APP has opposed the Application inter alia contending that the first informant was subjected to the physical and mental torture at the hands of the present Applicant. Not only that, the present Applicant used to take the first informant to several persons who would physically abuse the first informant. Thus, there is a strong prima facie case against the present Applicant for commission of the offence in question. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.