A Jammu and Kashmir court recently rejected the bail plea of a man who was arrested for allegedly making dowry demands and not attending his wedding reception held four years after his nikah to the bride. [UT of Jammu and Kashmir V/S Fayaz Ahmad Dar and ors.]
As per a police complaint, the man skipped the event after dowry demands allegedly made by his family were not met by the bride’s family.
Additional Special Mobile Magistrate at Awantipora, Shahber Ayaz while denying bail to the groom as well has his father, opined that the case has the potential of tearing the social fabric into pieces.
“The alleged incident has the potential of tearing the social fabric into pieces and stay as a dagger, thrust deep, into the institution of morality. I do not see an iota of cause which can tilt my opinion towards the arrest of the accused being unnecessary specifically in a situation where there is hue and cry in the society and serious chances of law and order problem exist,” the judge said.
As per the police and the bride (complainant), the wedding reception (referred to as the “departure ceremony” in the order) was slated to be held in September 2023 in Kashmir’s Awantipora, four years after the nikah between the bride and the groom took place.
The bride alleged that before the wedding reception was fixed, the groom had persuaded her to have a physical relationship as well since the nikah was over. She used to meet him and also believed him to be her husband, the Court was told.
However, the bride’s family was later told on the day of the wedding reception that the groom and his family would not be attending the event unless an amount of ₹20 lakh in cash and a car was not given as dowry.
The bride proceeded to file a police complaint in the matter. The police filed a case accusing the groom and his father of offences under Sections 420 (cheating), and 498-A (cruelty to woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The accused persons, however, denied these allegations and asserted that a false complaint had been filed against them.
They also pointed out that the alleged offences only carried a seven year prison term at most. Hence, they contended that they ought to be released on bail in view of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on arrest in the Arnesh Kumar judgment.
The Court acknowledged that ordinarily, bail is the rule and jail the exception. However, the judge proceeded to conclude that this was an exceptional case where bail could not be granted.
In this regard, the Court referred to the prosecution’s submission that the incident had created hue and cry among the public and that the arrest of the accused had been helpful in maintaining peace in the area.
“In my opinion, the (Arnesh Kumar) judgment cannot and is not to be treated as a bail order or a magic wand which would be waved at the pleasure of an accused to earn his release on bail,” the Court added.
The court also observed that the investigation of the case was at its infancy and that more heinous offences could be added against the accused.
On a related note, the complainant’s lawyer had argued that the offence of rape would be attracted in this case since the groom had persuaded the complainant to have physical relations on a “fake promise of marriage.”
Having taken note of these aspects as well, the Court proceeded to dismiss the bail application of the groom and his father.
Advocates Sheikh Mudasir, Irfan Javid and Adil Nabi appeared for the bail applicants.
Additional Public Prosecutor Romisa Rasool appeared for the Jammu and Kashmir government.
Advocates Zahid Hussain Dar, and Syed Irfan Muhammad appeared for the complainant. (Bar&Bench)
