SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Code Read With Sections 3/4 Of The … vs In Re: Sahanaj Begum @ Poli & Anr on 18 September, 2019

1

18.09.19
Sl. Nos .105, 122 168

akd
[ALLOWED]
C. R. M. 8484 of 2019
with
C. R. M. 8511 of 2019
with
C. R. M. 8603 of 2019

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 16.09.2019 in connection with Ekbalpore Police Station Case No. 172
of 2019 dated 10.05.2019 under Sections 494/Section498A/Section406/Section313/Section419/Section34 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Sections 3/Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And
In Re: Sahanaj Begum @ Poli Anr.

… … Petitioners

W I T H

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 16.09.2019 in connection with Ekbalpore Police Station Case No. 172
of 2019 dated 10.05.2019 under Sections 498A/Section406/Section313/Section419/Section34 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Sections 3/Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And
In Re: Minarul Islam Khandakar @ Khandakar Minarul Islam Anr.

… … Petitioners

W I T H

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 17.09.2019 in connection with Ekbalpore Police Station Case No. 172
of 2019 dated 10.05.2019 under Sections 494/Section498A/Section406/Section313/Section419/Section34 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Sections 3/Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

And
In Re: Fazlul Karim Khandakar
… … Petitioner

Mr. Syed Shamsul Arefin .. Advocate
Mr. Asraf Ali .. Advocate
Ms. Sreejoyee Bose .. Advocate
… … for the petitioners [in all applications]

Mr. Zeshanuddin .. Advocate
Mr. Nouraj Rahber .. Advocate
2

Ms. Amrin Khatoon .. Advocate
… … for the de-facto complainant
[in all applications]
Mrs. Sujata Das .. Advocate
… … for the State [in CRM 8484/2019]

Mrs. Debjani Sahu .. Advocate
… … for the State [in CRM 8511/2019]

Ms. Sonali Bhar .. Advocate
… … for the State [in CRM 8511/2019]

Heard the learned advocate appearing for the parties in all the applications.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated

in the instant case at the behest of the de-facto complainant-wife. It is further submitted

that one Fazlul Karim Khandakar (petitioner in CRM 8603 of 2019) started living with the

de-facto complainant in the year 2012. Subsequently, the relationship was formalised by

executing kabilnama. It is also submitted that at the time of marriage, the de-facto

complainant was fully aware of the marital status of her husband. However, disputes

cropped up subsequently and the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case.

Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail and strongly contends that suppressing the prior marriage of Fazlul Karim

Khandakar (petitioner in CRM 8603 of 2019), the de-facto complainant was induced to

enter into matrimony. He further submits that she was tortured and as a result she

miscarried in the year 2014.

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and

draws our attention to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

3

We have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties. It appears

that there was a love affair between Fazlul Karim Khandakar (petitioner in CRM 8603 of

2019) and the de-facto complainant which fructified into marriage. Since 2012 they were

living together. Relationship matured into matrimony in the year 2014. In view of the long

association between the parties, we are of the opinion that it is a matter to be decided at

the appropriate stage of the proceeding whether the de-facto complainant was unaware of

the marital status of the husband namely, Fazlul Karim Khandakar (petitioner in CRM

8603 of 2019) or not. That apart, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR vis-à-vis

miscarriage which occurred in the year 2014. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the

accused/petitioners may not be necessary in the facts of the present case and they may

be granted anticipatory bail however, subject to strict conditions upon Fazlul Karim

Khandakar (petitioner in CRM 8603 of 2019).

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners,

namely (1) Sahanaj Begum @ Poli (2) Fardin Islam @ Rohit [petitioners in CRM

8484 of 2019], (1) Minarul Islam Khandakar @ Khandakar Minarul Islam (2) Delera

Begum [petitioners in CRM 8511 of 2019] and Fazlul Karim Khandakar [petitioner in

CRM 8603 of 2019], be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the

arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall appear

before the court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date and Fazlul
4

Karim Khandakar (petitioner in CRM 8603 of 2019) shall meet the Investigating Officer

once in a week until further orders.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation