Rahisa v. State

1. The petitioners who are wife and husband seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 1573/2015 under Sections 313/328/376/377/34 IPG registered at PS Jamia Nagar, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the above noted FIR BAIL APPLN. 2734/2015 and 25/2016 2016:DHC:8692 T is pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner Mohd. Irfan, jfrustrated by the acts of the complainant and the mother of extorting money and misbehaving with him. Though the complainant claims that she was married forcibly by giving a stupefying drug however, the fact of the matter is that the complainant lived with Mohd. Irfan as his wife in separate house for more than six months which fact has been verified form the neighbours and is also admitted by the complainant in her other complaint and MLC. Since the petitioner Mohd. Irfan refused to succumb to the demands of the complainant the above noted FIR has been registered.

3. The allegations of the prosecutrix in the FIR are that about l}/i years ago Mohd. Irfan, aged 40-45 years, who was her uncle and married having three children started frequently visiting her residence. Two years ago when the complainant went to Nainital for a trip with her family, Mohd. Irfan also accompanied them and stayed in the same hotel. In the dinner they were given food laced with intoxicated substance due to which all the family members became unconscious and Irfan sexually assaulted her without her consent and made video film. Thereafter Irfan continued establishing physical relationship by blackmailing her and even had unnatural sex with her. In the month of May, 2014 Irfan called the complainant to his house in the absence of his family and forcibly had unnatural sex and called two of his friends also asking them to make physical relations with the complainant however, she succeeded in escaping from the house. She became pregnant th and Irfan forcefully gave her pills to abort the child. On 19 December, 2014 Irfan called her at his house where Rahisa gave her a cup of tea after which she became unconscious. Thereafter two other persons joined them and she found that her nikah was got performed forcefully to Irfan. On 20^*^ December, 2014 Irfan took her to the Court on the pretext of giving her divorce and took her signatures. She further alleged that during her stay with Irfan from 19^*^ December, 2014 to 27^*^ May, 2015 she was tortured and beaten and Rahisa demanded Rupees Five lakhs from her. Thus she sought action against the two petitioners.

4. The above noted complaint, on the basis of which FIR No. 1573/2015 was registered was lodged on IS'*^ November, 2015 by the complainant. Before the said complaint on 16'^ May, 2015, Irfan had lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police intimating that he had married the th complainant on 19 December, 2014 as per Muslim Rites and Customs. This was his second marriage performed without any dowry article or any marriage reception by Kazi in the presence of the witnesses and in this regard a marriage affidavit was executed which was got registered by Notary Public on 20"^ December, 2014. After solemnisation of the marriage they shifted to a different address where both ofthem lived as a newlywed couple and since then he was residing with her. He stated that the marriage has been consummated and he paid the mehar amount to the complainanton the first night itself. However, after solemnisation of the marriage he realised that the mother and the brother ofthe complainant started demanding money from him which he paid. However, since the demands increased he objected to the same and in return he was threatenedto be implicated in false criminal cases. On 11^*" May, 2014 the complainant went to his first wife, picked up th quarrel with her and extended threats to her. Further on 27 May, 2015 a Kalandara under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. was prepared vide DD No.44A wherein it was noted that Irfan was beating the complainant and demanding the money given to the complainant's mother back. The MLC of the prosecutrix was got prepared on 27'^ May, 2015 itself which showed swelling over the occipital region however, in the MLC prepared the complainant who was the informant herself gave the name of her husband as Mohd. Irfan and the residential address where the two ofthem were residing as a couple.

5. After the FIR was registered, the complainant gave a letter to the SHO, PS Jamia Nagar on 16^'^ February, 2016 recorded vide DD No.84B wherein she stated that differences arose between her and her husband due to which she got FIR No.1573/2015 lodged however, she has realised that this was not a proper behaviour ofher and she wants to close the FIR.

6. Before the Court today, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in view of the fact that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. No doubt the allegations as spelt out against the petitioners are serious in nature however, as noted above, even as per the admission of the complainant she was manied to Mohd Irfan and was a resident of Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar. There was no compulsion on her to live with Mohd. Irfan for more than six months in a rented accommodation which prima facie belies the fact that the marriage was performed forcefully without the consent of the complainant. Without commenting on whether the defence ofthe petitioner is probable or not in view ofthe vacillating stand ofthe complainant, I deem it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that in the event ofarrest the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a BAIL APPLK 2734/2015 and 25/2016 0-^ personal bond in the sum of ?25,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned, further subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and will not leave the country without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

7. Petitions are disposed of.

8. Order dasti.