RAHNA JALAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
LAWS(SC)-2020-12-59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 17,2020

Rahna Jalal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA And ORS. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NARENDRAPURI LADHUPURI GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-379] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPAL PRABHATJEE KHATIK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
LADUBEN JAYDEVBHAI BRAHMAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-541] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SADIQ AHMED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN JAIPURIYA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
P.S. MAHESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-1-115] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DR DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, rejecting the application for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973(CrPC). Originally, the Special Leave Petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution was filed by two petitioners. The first petitioner is the spouse of the second respondent, who has filed the complaint leading to the registration of the first information report. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. By an order of this Court dated 3 December 2020, the Special Leave Petition was not entertained at the behest of the first petitioner and he was granted time to surrender before the competent court of jurisdiction and apply for regular bail.
(3.)The issue which survives in the present appeal is whether the High Court was justified in declining the prayer for anticipatory bail moved by the appellant (the second petitioner in the Special Leave Petition as it was originally filed). The marriage between the second respondent and the appellant's son was solemnized on 14 May 2016. They have a child who was born in May 2017. On 27/8/2020, the second respondent lodged a first information report, complaining of offences under the provisions of Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019(Act). On 27 August 2020, the first information report, being FIR No 908, was lodged at North Parur Police Station, District Ernakulam Rural. Insofar as is material to the controversy in the present appeal, the FIR contains an allegation that on 5 December 2019, at about 2.30pm, the appellant's son pronounced talaq three times at their house. Following this, it has been stated, the appellant's son entered into a second marriage.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.