Friday, 25 December 2020

Guidelines of Kerala high court for the procedure to be followed for grant of bail to accused for an offence under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019

  Therefore, from the above discussions, the

following conclusions are emerged :

(i) An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not

barred in a case in which an offence under the

provisions of Act, 2019 is alleged. But, if an

accused wants to avail the right under Section 438

Cr.P.C., he should specifically plead in an

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. about the

reasons for not approaching the Magistrate under

Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019.

(ii) If an accused in a case registered under the

provisions of the Act, 2019 filed a Bail Application

before the Magistrate under Section 7(c), his

personal presence before the Magistrate is not

necessary till final orders are passed in the Bail

Application. The personal presence of the victim is

also not needed. The accused can file the Bail

Application through a lawyer if he intends to do so.

The victim also can contest the bail application

through a lawyer if she decides so.

(iii) If a Bail Application is filed under Section 7(c) of the

Act, 2019, the Magistrate should hear the married

Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced.

(iv) The order passed in a Bail Application filed under

Section 7(c) should be a speaking order.

(v) If a Bail Application filed by an accused under

section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 is allowed, the

Magistrate can direct the accused to appear before

the court within a short period to comply the bail

conditions including the execution of bond, etc.

(vi) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned

Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the

Investigating Officer can take up follow up action

and arrest the accused, if necessary.

(vii) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned

Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the

accused can challenge that order, if he intends to do

so, in accordance with law. At that stage, the

accused can even file an application under Section

438 Cr.P.C., if there is an apprehension of arrest.

(viii) If an application under Section 7(c) is allowed, the

married Muslim woman upon whom a talaq is

pronounced can challenge that order in accordance

with law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

Bail Appl..No.9163 OF 2019


NAHAS Vs THE STATE OF KERALA,


Dated this the 3rd day of August 2020

The above Bail Application is filed by the accused in

Crime No.1303 of 2019 of Fort Kochi Police Station under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). This

case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence

punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection

of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (For short, the Act, 2019).

2. The prosecution case is that the defacto

complainant married the petitioner on 3.5.2015 as per religious

rituals, and they were living as husband and wife.

Subsequently, the petitioner with an intention to end the marital

relationship with the defacto complainant sent a registered

letter on 4.11.2019, pronouncing triple talaq to the

complainant. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed

the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 2019.

3. When this Bail Application came up for

consideration, through Video Conference, this court informed


the counsel for the petitioner that, when there is a specific

provision regarding grant of bail in the Act 2019, it is always

better for the petitioner to approach the Magistrate Court

concerned under Section 7 (c) of the Act, 2019 before filing an

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. But, the counsel

submitted that if the petitioner files a Bail Application before the

Magistrate Court under Section 7(c), there is every chance to

remand the petitioner by the learned Magistrate because the

learned Magistrate can consider the Bail Application only after

issuing notice to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the

counsel submitted that the petitioner would be in remand till

Bail Application is considered by the learned Magistrate under

Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019. The counsel also submitted that

it would be an injustice to the petitioner, if he is remanded by

the learned Magistrate before considering the Bail Application

on merit under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019. Therefore, the

counsel submitted that an application under Section 438

Cr.P.C. is the only remedy to the petitioner.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioner could approach the Magistrate under Section 7(c) of

the Act, 2019, and this court need not exercise the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

5. Therefore, the question to be decided is whether an

accused involved in an offence under the Act, 2019 can file a

petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. without filing a Bail

Application under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 before the

Magistrate court concerned.

6. The Act, 2019 received the assent of the President

of India on 31.7.2019. The statement of objects and reasons

of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill,

2019 is relevant while considering the provisions in the Act,

2019. The statement of objects and reasons of the Bill is

extracted hereunder :

“The Supreme Court in the matter of Shayara

Bano Vs. Union of India and others and other connected

matters, on the 22nd August, 2017, in a majority judgment

of 3:2, set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat (three

pronouncements of talaq, at one and the same time)

practiced by certain Muslim husbands to divorce their

wives. This judgment gave a boost to liberate Indian

Muslim women from the age-old practice of capricious

and whimsical method of divorce, by some Muslim men,

leaving no room for reconciliation.

2. The petitioner in the above said case

challenged, inter alia, talaq-e-biddat on the ground that

the said practice is discriminatory and against dignity of

women. The judgment vindicated the position taken by

the Government that talaq-e-biddat is against

constitutional morality, dignity of women and the

principles of gender equality, as also against gender

equity guaranteed under the Constitution. The All India

Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which was the 7th

respondent in the above case, in their affidavit, inter alia,

contended that it was not for the judiciary to decide

matters of religious practices such as talaq-e-biddat, but

for the legislature to make any law on the same. They

had also submitted in the Supreme Court that they would

issue advisories to the members of the community

against this practice.

3. In spite of the Supreme Court setting aside

talaq-e-biddat, and the assurance of AIMPLB, there have

been reports of divorce by way of talaq-e-biddat from

different parts of the country. It is seen that setting aside

talaq-e-biddat by the Supreme Court has not worked as

any deterrent in bringing down the number of divorces by

this practice among certain Muslims. It is, therefore, felt

that there is a need for State action to give effect to the

order of the Supreme Court and to redress the

grievances of victims of illegal divorce. Therefore, to

protect the rights of married Muslim women who are

being divorced by triple talaq, a Bill, namely, the Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017,

was introduced in, and passed by, the Lok Sabha on the

28th December, 2017 and was pending in Rajya Sabha.

4. The aforesaid Bill proposed to declare the

practice of triple talaq as void and illegal and made it an

offence punishable with imprisonment upto three years

and fine, and triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the first

class. It was also proposed to provide subsistence

allowance to married Muslim women and dependent

children and also for the custody of minor children. The

Bill further provided to make the offence cognizable and

non-bailable. However, apprehensions have been raised

in and outside Parliament regarding the provisions of the

pending Bill which enables any person to give

information to an officer in charge of a police station to

take cognizance of the offence and making the offence

non-bailable.

5. In order to address the above concerns, it

has been decided to make the offence cognizable, if the

information relating to the commission of an offence is

given to an officer in charge of a police station by the

married Muslim women upon whom talaq is pronounced

or any person related to her by blood or marriage. It was

also decided to make the offence non-bailable and

compoundable at the instance of the married Muslim

women with the permission of the Magistrate, on such

terms and conditions as he may determine.

6. As the Bill was pending for consideration in

Rajya Sabha and the practice of divorce by triple talaq

(i.e., talaq-e-biddat) was continuing, there was an urgent

need to take immediate action to prevent such practice

by making stringent provisions in the law. Since both

Houses of Parliament were not in session and

circumstances existed which render it necessary for the

President to take immediate action in the matter, the

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)

Ordinance, 2018 (Ord.7 of 2018), with aforesaid changes

was promulgated on the 19th September, 2018.

7. In order to replace the said Ordinance, the

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill,

2018 was introduced in Lok Sabha on the 17th December,

2018 and was passed by that House on the 27th

December, 2018. However, the Bill could not be taken up

for consideration in Rajya Sabha and both Houses were

adjourned. As both Houses of Parliament were not in

session and the practice of divorce by triple talaq (i.e.

talaq-e-biddat) was continuing, to give continued effect

to the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance, the Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance,

2019 (Ord.1 of 2019) was promulgated on the 12th

January, 2019.

8. Subsequently, to replace the Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance,

2019, necessary official amendments to the Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018

were moved in Rajya Sabha. However, the Bill could not

be taken up for consideration in Rajya Sabha and both

Houses were adjourned. Since both Houses of

Parliament were not in session, to give continued effect

to the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance, the Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second

Ordinance, 2019 (Ord.4 of 2019) was promulgated on the

21st February, 2019. Thereafter, the Sixteenth Lok Sabha


was dissolved on the 25th May, 2019 and the Muslim

Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 and

the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)

Bill, 2018 pending in Rajya Sabha lapsed.

9. Accordingly, to replace the Muslim Women

(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Second Ordinance,

2019, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on

Marriage) Bill, 209 is being introduced in Parliament.

10. The legislation would help in ensuring the

larger Constitutional goals of gender justice and gender

equality of married Muslim women and help subserve

their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and

empowerment.

11. The Bill seeks to replace the aforesaid

Ordinance.”

Therefore, while interpreting any provisions of the Act, 2019,

the intention of the Parliament to enact the Act should be there

in mind.

7. The Parliament passed the above bill with the

salutary object of ensuring the larger constitutional goals of

gender justice and gender equality of married Muslim women

and help subserve their fundamental rights of nondiscrimination

and empowerment. The provisions in the Act,

2019 are to be read along with the statement of objects and

reasons. In the statement of objects and reasons, it is stated

that it was decided to make the offence non bailable and

compoundable at the instance of the Married Muslim Women

with the permission of the Magistrate. The offence is now

cognizable and non bailable.

8. There are only eight Sections in the Act, 2019.

Section 1 of the Act, 2019 deals about the short title, extent

and commencement. Section 2 of the Act is the definition

clause. Chapter I of Act, 2019 consists of Section 1 and

Section 2. Section 2(c) of the Act, 2019 defines talaq. Section

2(c) of the Act, 2019 is extracted hereunder :

“(c) “talaq” means talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of

talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable

divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.”

9. Chapter II deals about the declaration of talaq to be

void and illegal. Section 4 of the Act, 2019 says that any

Muslim husband, who pronounces talaq referred to in Section

3, upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a

term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable

to fine. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2019 are extracted

hereunder :

“3. Any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband

upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic

form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and

illegal.

4. Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq

referred to in Section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and

shall also be liable to fine.”

10. Chapter III of the Act, 2019 deals about the

Protection of Rights of Married Muslim Women. In Chapter III,

Section 7 is included. Section 7(c) says about the disposal of

Bail Application filed by an accused charged with an offence

under the Act, 2019. Section 7 of the Act, 2019 is extracted

hereunder :

“7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, -

(a) an offence punishable under this Act shall

be cognizable, if information relating to the commission of

the offence is given to an officer in charge of a police

station by the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is

pronounced or any person related to her by blood or

marriage ;

(b) an offence punishable under this Act shall

be compoundable, at the instance of the married Muslim

woman upon whom talaq is pronounced with the

permission of the Magistrate, on such terms and

conditions as he may determine;

(c) no person accused of an offence

punishable under this Act shall be released on bail unless

the Magistrate, on an application filed by the accused and

after hearing the married Muslim woman upon whom

talaq is pronounced, is satisfied that there are reasonable

grounds for granting bail to such person.”

11. Consideration of bail is dealt with in Section 7(c) of

the Act, 2019. Section 7 starts with a notwithstanding clause.

As per Section 7(c) notwithstanding anything contained in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an

offence punishable under the Act, 2019 shall be released on

bail unless the Magistrate, on an application filed by the

accused and after hearing the married Muslim woman upon

whom talaq is pronounced, is satisfied that there are

reasonable grounds for granting bail to such person. So, on a

reading of Section 7(c), it is clear that a separate procedure is

contemplated for the disposal of Bail Applications of the

accused against whom offence under the Act, 2019 is alleged.

A hearing of the married Muslim woman upon whom talaq is

pronounced is mandatory while considering an application for

bail by an accused. Moreover, a speaking order is necessary

from the Magistrate, while granting bail to a person accused of

an offence, under the Act, 2019.

12. When there are specific provision and specific

procedure contemplated for consideration of bail by the

Magistrate Court under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, whether

an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be entertained is

the question in this case. There is indeed no prohibition of the

applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the Act, 2019. Section

18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 clearly says that nothing in Section 438 of

the Cr.P.C. shall apply in relation to any case involving the

arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an

offence under that Act. But, there is no such prohibitory

Section in the Act, 2019 restraining the court in entertaining an

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be

said that there is a total bar to entertain an application under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. if an offence under the Act, 2019 is alleged

against an accused.

13. But, the next question is whether the discretionary

jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be entertained in

each and every case in which offence under the Act, 2019 is

alleged. In its wisdom, the Parliament contemplated a

separate procedure for consideration of Bail Application of an

accused involved in an offence under the Act, 2019. As per

Section 7 (c) of the Act, 2019, the Magistrate is empowered to

consider an application under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019

after hearing the Muslim woman upon whom talaq is

pronounced. When there is such a specific provision

mentioned in the Act, 2019, normally an application under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. need not be entertained. I make it clear

that there is no total prohibition in entertaining an application

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. But when a specific Section is

provided in the Act, 2019 for consideration of a Bail Application

by the Magistrate Court, an accused should avail such a right

before exercising his right under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It will be

beneficial to the victims in the Act, 2019, because all of them

may not be able to appear before the District Centre where

the Sessions Court situated or before the High Court because

of their financial situation also. It will be easy for them to

approach their jurisdictional Magistrate Court instead of

Sessions Court or High Court. But, of course there may be an

extraordinary situation in which remedy of an accused will be

only under Section 438 Cr.P.C. But, in such cases, an accused

should explain in his application filed under Section 438

Cr.P.C. about the reason for not approaching the learned

Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019.

14. The apprehension raised by the counsel for the

petitioner, in this case, is that if the accused appeared before

the Magistrate court and files an application under Section 7(c)

of the Act, 2019, the learned Magistrate can consider the Bail

Application only after issuing notice to the accused. The

offence under Section 4 of the Act, 2019 is a non bailable

offence. In such situation, once the accused surrenders before

the learned Magistrate, he will be remanded by the learned

Magistrate and till his Bail Application is considered on merit,

he will be in remand. Such a possibility also cannot be ruled

out. Then what is the remedy is the question. Before

considering an application for bail on merit in accordance to

Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, if the accused is remanded, that

will be definitely an infringement of his personal liberty. That

amounts to confinement without hearing his case on merit.

15. In my opinion, for filing a Bail Application under

Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the presence of the accused is

not mandatory. An accused can file an application for bail

under Section 7(c) through a lawyer. I am aware of the

mandate of Section 437 Cr.P.C., which says that the learned

Magistrate can consider a Bail Application only on certain

situations. Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder :

“437. When bail may be taken in case of nonbailable

offence

(1) When any person accused of, or suspected

of, the commission of any non bailable offence is

arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-incharge

of a police station or appears or is brought before

a court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he

may be released on bail, but - ....”


16. On a reading of Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., it is clear

that the Magistrate can consider a Bail Application only ;

(a) when any person accused of, or suspected of, the

commission of any non bailable offence is arrested or

detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a

police station

or

(b) appears before the Magistrate

or

(c) is brought before a court other than High Court or

Sessions Court.

These three pre-conditions are necessary for considering a

Bail Application by a Magistrate under Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C.

So, it is clear that a Magistrate can entertain an application

under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. only if the accused is arrested or

detained without warrant by an officer in charge of the police

station or the accused appears before the court or the accused

is brought before a court. But, Section 7 of the Act, 2019 starts

with a notwithstanding clause. Section 7 starts with a


sentence “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973”. What is the meaning of usage

'notwithstanding' in a statute is explained by this Court and the

Apex Court in several decisions.

17. In Pannalal Bansilal Patil and others v. State of

A.P. and another [AIR (1996) Supreme Court 1023], the

Supreme Court observed like this :

“22. Section 16 with a non obstante clause

abolishes the hereditary right in trusteeship of a

charitable and Hindu religious institution or endowment.

It is settled law that the legislature within its competence

may amend the law. The language in Section 16 seeks

to alter the pre-existing operation of the law. The

alteration in language may be the result of many factors.

It is settled legislative device to employ non obstante

clause to suitably alter the pre-existing law consistent

with the legislative policy under the new Act to provide the

remedy for the mischief the legislature felt most acute.

Section 16 therefore, applying non obstante clause,

altered the operation of any compromise, agreement

entered into or a scheme framed or a judgment, decree

or order passed by any Court, tribunal or other authority

or any deed or other document prior to the Act. The preexisting

hereditary right in trusteeship in the Officer of the

hereditary trustee, mutawalli, dharmakartha or muntazim

or by whatever name it is called and abolished the same

prospectively from the date of the commencement of the

Act. Article 15(1) of the Constitution prohibits

discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of

religion, race caste sex place of birth or any of them.”

[Emphasis supplied]

18. In A.G.Varadarajulu and another v. State of T.N.

and others [(1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 231], the

Supreme Court observed like this :

“16. It is well settled that while dealing with a non

obstante clause under which the legislature wants to give

overriding effect to a section, the court must try to find

out the extent to which the legislature had intended to

give one provision orverriding effect over another

provision. Such intention of the legislature in this behalf

is to be gathered from the enacting part of the section. In

Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369

: 1953 SCR 1 Patanjali Sastri, J. observed :

“The enacting part of a statute must, where it

is clear, be taken to control the non obstante clause

where both cannot be read harmoniously;”

In Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1

SCC 85 (SCC at p.139) Hidayatullah, C.J. observed that

the non obstante clause is no doubt a very potent clause

intended to exclude every consideration arising from

other provisions of the same statute or other statute but

“for that reason alone we must determine the scope” of

that provision strictly. When the section containing the

said clause does not refer to any particular provisions


which it intends to override but refers to the provisions of

the statute generally, it is not permissible to hold that it

excludes the whole Act and stands all alone by itself. “A

search has, therefore, to be made with a view to

determining which provision answers the description and

which does not.” ”

19. From the above decisions, it is clear that by

inserting a non-obstante clause in an Act, the intention of the

legislature is to give overriding effect over another provision.

Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. deals with the powers of the Magistrate

to consider a Bail Application. Similarly, notwithstanding

anything contained in Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., a separate

procedure is contemplated in Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 for

consideration of Bail Application by the Magistrate. But, it is to

be noted that the three pre-conditions to consider a Bail

Application under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. is not there in Section

7(c) of the Act, 2019.

20. In Section 7(c), it is only stated that 'on an

application filed by the accused'. The appearance of the

accused before the court is not insisted as per Section 7(c) of

the Act, 2019. Similarly arrest and detention of the accused


without warrant by the police is not contemplated in Section

7(c) of the Act, 2019 for consideration of the Bail Application.

Similarly arrest and production of the accused before the

Magistrate are also not contemplated in Section 7(c) of the Act,

2019. As far as consideration of Bail Application under the Act,

2019 is concerned, Section 7(c) is a complete code. There is

no insistence for the appearance of the accused for the

consideration of a Bail Application in Section 7(c). Therefore,

an accused charged under the provisions of the Act, 2019 can

very well file an application before the Magistrate Court

concerned through a lawyer. If an application is filed through a

lawyer under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the Magistrate

should issue notice to the married Muslim woman upon whom

talaq is pronounced. Married woman can also appear through

a counsel, if she wanted to appear like that. Thereafter, the

learned Magistrate has to hear both parties and pass an order

on merit either rejecting the Bail Application or granting the Bail

Application. On both situations, the presence of the accused

is not contemplated in Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019. If the Bail


Application is allowed, the learned Magistrate can impose a

condition that the accused should appear before the court

personally to execute the bond and to comply other conditions

of bail, if any. If the Bail Application is dismissed, the accused

can work out his remedy. He can either challenge the order

dismissing the Bail Application itself in accordance with law or

the accused can file an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed a

non bailable offence. The personal presence of the accused

before the Magistrate for considering a Bail Application or at

the time when the final order is passed under Section 7(c) is

not mandatory. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner

herein that if he appeared before the Magistrate Court under

Section 7(c), he would be remanded is out of question. If the

Magistrate is dismissing or allowing a Bail Application, the

Magistrate should specifically mention the reason for the same

in the light of the specific provision in Section 7(c). In other

words, the order dismissing or allowing a Bail Application

should be a speaking order, so that if any of the party wants to


challenge the order, the superior court will be in a better

position to understand the case. Once the Bail Application is

dismissed, the Investigating Officer can arrest the accused, if

necessary. Therefore, from the above discussions, the

following conclusions are emerged :

(i) An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not

barred in a case in which an offence under the

provisions of Act, 2019 is alleged. But, if an

accused wants to avail the right under Section 438

Cr.P.C., he should specifically plead in an

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. about the

reasons for not approaching the Magistrate under

Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019.

(ii) If an accused in a case registered under the

provisions of the Act, 2019 filed a Bail Application

before the Magistrate under Section 7(c), his

personal presence before the Magistrate is not

necessary till final orders are passed in the Bail

Application. The personal presence of the victim is

also not needed. The accused can file the Bail

Application through a lawyer if he intends to do so.

The victim also can contest the bail application

through a lawyer if she decides so.

(iii) If a Bail Application is filed under Section 7(c) of the

Act, 2019, the Magistrate should hear the married

Muslim woman upon whom talaq is pronounced.

(iv) The order passed in a Bail Application filed under

Section 7(c) should be a speaking order.

(v) If a Bail Application filed by an accused under

section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 is allowed, the

Magistrate can direct the accused to appear before

the court within a short period to comply the bail

conditions including the execution of bond, etc.

(vi) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned

Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the

Investigating Officer can take up follow up action

and arrest the accused, if necessary.

(vii) If a Bail Application is dismissed by the learned

Magistrate under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019, the

accused can challenge that order, if he intends to do

so, in accordance with law. At that stage, the

accused can even file an application under Section

438 Cr.P.C., if there is an apprehension of arrest.

(viii) If an application under Section 7(c) is allowed, the

married Muslim woman upon whom a talaq is

pronounced can challenge that order in accordance

with law.

21. In the light of the above conclusions, the petitioner

in this Bail Application can approach the learned Magistrate

under Section 7(c) of the Act, 2019 with a Bail Application.

Therefore, this Bail Application is disposed of with the

above observations.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE


Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment