LAWS(BOM)-2020-6-118

MUMTAJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 09, 2020
MUMTAJ Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant apprehending arrest in connection with the offence punishable u/s 366,506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code registered vide Crime No. 23/2020 with Umri police station, Taluka Umri, District Nanded, preferred this application for anticipatory bail.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.P. for respondent - State. Perused the F.I.R. and the Order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that applicant is likely to be arrested and humiliated for no offence committed on her part. It is submitted that daughter of informant was in affair with son of applicant. Both are major in age. They decided to perform the marriage. Accordingly, the daughter of informant performed marriage with son of applicant on 23/01/2020. They are living happy marrital life. Being annoyed, the informant lodged false complaint alleging that his daughter was kidnapped and abducted. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by informant, the offences u/s 366, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been registered against her son and family members. It is submitted that son of applicant was arrested and released on bail. The applicant apprehending arrest approached Sessions Court, Nanded for pre-arrest bail. By order dated 20/03/2020, learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application. It is submitted that if the overall allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken to their face value and were accepted in its entirety, still it makes out no offence u/s 366 of Indian Penal Code . The victim i.e. daughter of informant who is major in age given statement before police that she has left the house of her father i.e. informant on her own and performed the marriage with Faiz, the son of applicant as per her will and desire. In that view no offence u/s 366 of Indian Penal Code attracted against the applicant. In this back-ground, learned counsel urged to extend protection u/s 438 of Cr.P.C . to applicant.