Hanifa Qureshi vs The State (NCT Of Delhi)

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.(ORAL)

The present bail application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing No. 94/2024, registered at Police Station Shaheen Bagh, for offences punishable under Sections 376/498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant alleging therein that in the last week of January, 2024 while she was present in her matrimonial home and one night when she was alone in her room, her father-in-law Mohd. Babu Qureshi had entered the room without clothes and had sexually and physically assaulted her and had threatened her not to disclose this incident to anyone. When she had disclosed this incident to her husband i.e. co-accused Mohd. Faizan Qureshi, her mother-in-law Smt. Hanifa Qureshi i.e. the present applicant and sister in law, they had also assaulted her physically, abused her and threatened her not to disclose this incident to anyone and further they had told her that it is a normal practice at their home. Her father in law had thereafter continued to sexually assault her on many occasions. On 02.03.2024, her brother-in-law i.e. co-accused Rizwan had also allegedly raped her. It is further alleged that her husband used to threaten her on point of gun. On the intervening night of 03/04.03.2024, when she could not bear mental, physical and sexual assault, she had fallen ill and had become mentally disturbed. Her parents had taken her to the parental home and she had to be admitted to VIMHANS Hospital for her treatment as she was under extreme mental trauma and had suffered from severe depression. After the treatment, she had informed the police about the incident in question. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded where she had reiterated her initial complaint and the account which she had disclosed to the doctor who had medically examined her. During course of investigation, the accused persons could not be arrested as they have been absconding.

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the present accused/applicant submits that the allegations levelled against her are false in nature and the complainant is trying to falsely implicate her in the present case and the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence. It is argued that the complainant got married to the son of the applicant in the year 2020 and they were happily living together, along with their two children, without any dispute prior to the said FIR. It is argued that the present complaint is a counterblast to the complaint dated 07.03.2024 lodged by the husband of the complainant against her family members. It is further argued that the instant matrimonial dispute has been given colour of rape just to make the offence appear serious and grave. It is also stated that the complainant is a 22-years old educated lady and has not mentioned any specific date or time of the alleged incident. It is argued that the complainant did not report the incident of alleged rape from January 2024 till night of 03/04.03.2024, when she had gone to her parents' house and further, even till 20.03.2024, and therefore, there is substantial delay in filing of the complaint. It is further submitted that offence under Section 376 of IPC is not made out against the present applicant and only Sections 498A/506 of IPC are made out against her, even if the allegations are taken to be true. It is further stated that the applicant undertakes to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and she shall abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the Court, and therefore, she be granted pre-arrest bail.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, argue that the allegations against the accused persons are serious in nature and the complainant has categorically mentioned in her complaint regarding the incidents of sexual assault committed upon her in the last week of January, 2024 and on 02.03.2024. It is further argued that it is not a case of torture alone but the seriousness of the case is reflected by the fact that the complainant in this case had to be treated at VIMHANS Hospital for a considerable period of time since she had suffered from severe depression due to the atrocities committed by the co-accused persons in this case. It further submitted that even if the allegations against the present accused may be termed as only under Section 498A of IPC by the applicant, the fact that she used to live in the same house can lead to an influence that she was responsible for abetment of the offence in question including sexual assault. It is further stated that as the case is at the initial stage, there are several facts which are yet to be verified. Thus, it is prayed that the present anticipatory bail application be rejected.

This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of State and complainant, and has gone through the material placed on record.

In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant herein, who is aged about 50 years, is the mother-in-law of the complainant. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations against the present applicant are that she keeps the complainant’s children away from her and does not let her get close to them. The other allegations against the present applicant are that when the complainant had disclosed the incidents of sexual assault to her, she told her that it was a normal practice in their home and had also assaulted her physically alongwith other accused persons.

This Court further notes that the applicant herein is the mother-in-law of the complainant, and the complainant has alleged that she was sexually assaulted by husband and son of the present applicant and that she was abused - mentally, sexually and physically, by her father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law. The allegations against the applicant prima facie at this stage appear to be of subjecting the complainant to cruelty and keeping her children away from the complainant. In these facts and circumstances, though the allegations against other co-accused persons are grave and serious in nature, the allegations as levelled against the present accused do not require her custodial interrogation.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant. It is therefore directed that in event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned, on the following terms and conditions:

The present application is accordingly disposed of.

The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.