Aurangabad: A 28-year-old man from Nanded got respite after the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court recently granted him bail in the triple talaq case for orally giving talaq to his wife in 2019.
Seven people, including the married sisters and parents of appellant Shaikh Altaf Nawab, a worker staying in Old Ganj, Nanded, were booked by the Kalamnoori police, Hingoli, under sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC and section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
Apprehending arrest, they had earlier approached the additional sessions judge, Hingoli, who had granted an interim bail on condition that they reach an amicable solution when Shaikh Altaf told the court that he hadn’t given the triple talaq orally and was ready to live with his wife. However, the negotiations failed when the woman insisted that the couple stay at her parents’ house in Kalamnoori. The man refused and, therefore, his wife and in-laws proceeded with the case.
The additional sessions judge allowed the bail applications of six other co-accused but “rejected the bail to the extent of present applicant only for the reason that the offence u/s 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, attracted against the applicant and is punishable with imprisonment for three years.”
Altaf then approached the HC through lawyer Saeed S Shaikh stating he was willing to cohabit with the informant (his wife) under his roof. Since the applicant is required to take care of his parents, he refused to submit to the demand of the informant, which led to filing of false complaint against the applicant, the lawyer argued.
While allowing the conditional anticipatory bail application on September 3, Justice V L Achliya observed: “Possibility of complaint with exaggerated allegations on account of matrimonial dispute cannot be ruled out. The fact that the complaint has been lodged against the entire family of the applicant exposes the tendency of the informant to rope in all the family members on account of matrimonial dispute. In that view, the possibility of the applicant being falsely implicated in the case cannot be ruled out. Grant of anticipatory bail would not hamper the investigation. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required for investigation.’’
Justice Achliya ordered: “In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with offence registered u/s 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 vide Crime No.379/2019 with police station, Kalamnoori district, Hingoli, the applicant be released on furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000 with one surety in the like amount.”