SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammad Farooq Ibrahim vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 August, 2018

1 of 3 12.ABA.1304.2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2018

Mohammad Farooq Ibrahim, Age 31 years,
Occ.Service, R/o.Pure Ali Naki, Ali Ganj,
Manikpur, Uttar Pradesh-230 202. Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents

Mr.Gautam Pyaralal for applicant.
Mr.Ganesh K. Gole I/by Ateet Shirodkar for respondent no.2.
Mr.Y.Y.Dabke, APP, for State.
Mr.M.M.Shirsat, PSI, Chunabhatti Police Station, present.

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 28th August 2018
PC :

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant is
apprehending arrest in connection with CR No.193 of 2016
registered with Chunabhatti Police Station for offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code. The complaint is lodged on 2 nd August 2016 by the wife
of applicant. The application preferred by the applicant for
anticipatory bail has been rejected by Sessions Court on 11 th May
2018.

2. The complainant has alleged that right from the beginning, she
was ill-treated by the accused. The father of complainant has given
jewellery worth Rs.6 lakh which is also misappropriated by the
accused. It is further alleged that the accused were demanding
dowry of Rs.50 lakh. The complainant also referred to the

Digitally signed by
Manish Manish S Thatte

S Thatte Date: 2018.08.30
11:49:16 +0530
2 of 3 12.ABA.1304.2018.doc

harassment meted out to her. There are two children out of
wedlock. It is alleged that the complainant was continuously abused
by the accused. The ornaments of the complainant were taken away
by them. The other articles given to her were also misappropriated.
The applicant also used to threaten her that he would leave her. She
was abused in filthy language. Even while feeding the child, the
accused used to snatch the bottle of milk and abuse her and also
assaulted her. The gold weighing about 9 tolas was misappropriated
by the accused.

3. The advocate for applicant submitted that the FIR was lodged
belatedly. The allegations are vague. The only allegation against the
applicant is that he had threatened that if she does not listen to other
accused, he would leave her. Apart from that, no other act is alleged
against him. The applicant was working abroad. Therefore could
not appear before police. It is further submitted that there is no
evidence of ornaments being purchased by the father of complainant.
The custodial interrogation of applicant is not necessary. Learned
APP submitted that although FIR was registered on 2nd August 2016,
the applicant was not available. A look out notice was issued against
him. The application was preferred in the year 2018 which has been
rejected. Custody of the applicant is required for the purpose of
recovery of gold ornaments. The applicant is also responsible for
causing harassment and mental cruelty to the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for intervenor also reiterated the submissions
advanced by learned APP. He pointed out the receipts with regards
to purchase of gold ornaments which are annexed to his affidavit
filed in these proceedings. He drew my attention to the nature of
3 of 3 12.ABA.1304.2018.doc

allegations in the FIR. The applicant is resident of Uttar Pradesh and
he was avoiding arrest since last two years.

5. Having heard both sides I have also perused the documents on
record. On reading the FIR it is apparent that serious allegations
were made against the accused. The applicant is husband of
complainant. Except accused no.5, other accused were not arrested.
The applicant was not available for two years. The complainant was
subjected to ill-treatment by abuses, threats and assault. The
complainant has also alleged that gold ornaments were
misappropriated by the accused. Recovery of the same is required to
be made. The applicant had acted in connivance with other accused.
In the circumstances, no case is made for grant of anticipatory bail to
the applicant. Hence, Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application
No.1304 of 2018 is rejected.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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