Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Second Anticipatory Bail Plea Of A Man Accused Of Pronouncing Triple Talaq, Reiterates Apex Court Deprecates Such Practice
The Chattisgarh High Court recently dismissed the second anticipatory bail application of a man accused of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 for inflicting Talaq-e-Biddat on her wife (the complainant).
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey noted that "Considering the fact that first bail application was dismissed on merits by a detailed order and second bail application has been preferred by the applicant more or less on the same grounds."
Further, the High Court relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shamim Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9449/2021 where the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing a second anticipatory bail application after the first application has been rejected.
Appearing for the Applicant, Advocate Uttam Pandey submitted that some facts were not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the first bail application for the grant of anticipatory bail. It was also submitted that ‘khula talaq’ was sent by the applicant from the Islamic Court of Nagpur and no Talaq-e-Biddat was inflicted on the complainant, therefore, the application may be allowed.
On the other hand, appearing for the State, Deputy Government Advocate Gagan Tiwari contended that anticipatory bail is not a statutory right linked with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, successive pleas are not maintainable.
Considering the submissions, the Court relied on the Judgment of Mohd. Shamim Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9449/2021 where the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing a second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and further relied on the Judgement of Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 493 where the High Court of Allahabad held that the power to grant anticipatory bail does not flow from Article 21 of the Constitution but it has been conferred by the Statute enacted by the Parliament whereas provisions contained in Section 439 flow from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, the High Court noted that "Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of Allahabad, I am of the view that there is no change of circumstance and first anticipatory bail application was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2023 on merits and thus, this successive application is not maintainable and the same is dismissed."
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail was dismissed and the Trial Court was directed that it shall not be influenced or bound by the observation made in the course of this order.
Cause Title: Mohammed Husham v. State Of Chhattisgarh [MCRCA No.652 of 2023]
