Shabana v. Mohd. Irfan & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The petition is hereby dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 439(2), 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 406, 498A
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. This petition for cancellation of bail seems to be a counterblast to the petition filed by the husband and other accused persons before this Court for quashing of FIR. This Court granted anticipatory bail to the husband/ respondent no.1 for cogent and just grounds.…
Judgment
February, 2011 + Crl. MC No.3599 /2009
11.02.2011 ...Petitioner % Shabana Versus Mohd. Irfan & Anr. ...Respondents Counsels:
Mr. S.D. Ansari and Mr. G.D. Ahmed for petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kumar for respondent.
3. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to the reporter or not? Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER
This application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant who is wife of the respondent no.1 for cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 6th September 2007. The husband/ respondent no.1 herein is involved in a case under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The bail order shows that the parties had three children and out of three children, two children were with the husband, one of them was a handicapped child, while one child was with the wife/ complainant/ petitioner. It was also noted by this Court that all the dowry articles had been received by the complainant and she had executed an affidavit to that effect. This Court also directed that the husband who was working as an Assistant to a Homeopathic doctor and earning Rs.3500/- per month, shall continue to pay Rs.500/- to the wife. The Court granted Crl.MC 3599/2009 Page 1 Of 2 anticipatory bail to the respondent no.1 herein.
The cancellation of anticipatory bail is sought on the ground that she has learnt that the police has scraped charge under Section 406 IPC qua respondent no.1 and on the ground that respondent no.1 had misled the court that two of the children were with him and it was also wrongly represented that all dowry articles had been returned.
Operative part
This petition for cancellation of bail seems to be a counterblast to the petition filed by the husband and other accused persons before this Court for quashing of FIR. This Court granted anticipatory bail to the husband/ respondent no.1 for cogent and just grounds. I find no ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent no.1. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner/wife that the husband misled the trial court has no force. The petition is hereby dismissed. February 11, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J Crl.MC 3599/2009 Page 2 Of 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is hereby dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 439(2), 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 406, 498A.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.