Supreme Court grants bail to man accused of allegedly coercing woman to sign blank papers & later using it as 'Nikah Nama'

Update: 2021-07-06 14:24 GMT

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to one Haseeb Khan, accused of coercing a woman to sign blank papers under the pretext of leaking her private video and then using the blank papers for effectuating a 'Nikah Nama'.

While the accused had stated that both him and the complainant had a love affair after which they married, Complainant had averred that there was no husband and wife relationship between them and that, she was made to sign some blank papers under threat/blackmail which were then used as a Nikah Nama.

The bench of Justices Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul  & Hemant Gupta, without going into the merits of the case stated that since the complainant did not appear before Court & that Khan had already been in custody for more than two years and also, since chargesheet had already been filed, it would be appropriate to grant bail to the accused.

On the issue of parties consenting to mediation under proceedings under section 125 of the CrPc, Court stated,

On our query, this aspect has not been adverted to in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. The only case they seek to make out is that there is actually no husband wife relationship and the complainant That does not answer our question.”

Factual Matrix:

Prosecution's averments

The complainant was a student of M.B.A. and her clothes were being stitched by the applicant, Haseeb Khan, who ran a boutique. During the course of one fitting, the applicant (Haseeb Khan) advised the complainant to take trial in the boutique.

There was no trial room but shutter of the shop was down. Hence the complainant tried the garment there. At the same time a video was captured in the camera of the same by the applicant without her knowledge.

There onwards the applicant started blackmailing the complainant to make the video clip viral and forced her to sign on blank papers. He made her write Inaya Khan on a paper which was scripted in Urdu and under the threat of leaking the alleged video clips took her signatures on the papers.

Later on the accused/applicant got a case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the family court in the name of prosecutrix on the basis of signature taken on the papers to show himself as husband of the prosecutrix and afterwards applicant is alleged to commit wrong with the prosecutrix on the pretext of not deleting the video clip.

It is further alleged that when it came into the knowledge of the prosecutrix that there is no way out left and she couldn’t bear the trauma, she informed her parent. As a result, a F.I.R. under section 506 and 376 IPC was filed.

Applicant's averments:

There was no trial/changing room in the boutique of the applicant and no any camera was found in the shop of the applicant.

The applicant and complainant were having a love affair since December 2016 and the complainant compelled the applicant to marry with her and as per the wishes of complainant, the complainant and the applicant solemnized their marriage on 12.01.2018 according to Islamic Custom and the complainant herself signed Nikahnama. 

Later on application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant before the family court, Lucknow which was registered as Case No. 171 of 2019 (Inaya Khan @ Ishita Sharma vs. Haseeb Khan). At the time of filing of the aforesaid application, the complainant was present in the family court, Lucknow. Also, the complainant and the applicant jointly made an application for referring the case for mediation and the aforesaid case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was sent to mediation center on 13.05.2019.

It is pertinent to note that the High Court of Allahabad had rejected the bail application on two separate occasions, i.e. September 6, 2019 and December 7, 2020.

The Allahabad High Court had rejected a bail of the accused in a case filed under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

Arguing for the bail application, applicant had stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that applicant, sans any criminal history, should be grated a bail. The applicant refuted the allegations about blackmailing the prosecutrix – using the video clips of her changing in the trial room in the applicant’s boutique – to get a signature on their Nikahnama.

The applicant refuted the blackmailing and also asserted that there is “no trial/changing room in the boutique of the applicant and no any camera was found in the shop of the applicant.”

Furthermore, the applicant had argued that the Nikahnama was signed by both parties consent, following their love affair. The applicant also alleged that it was rather the prosecutrix who had “compelled” the applicant to marry her.

While opposing the bail application, the A.G.A stated that the investigation had revealed that the complainant was a student pursuing M.B.A. and that she used to get her clothes stitched by the applicant. It was also submitted that the complainant was advised to take trial in the boutique when she started complaining about the fitting.

A.G.A also submitted that although there was no trial room, the boutiques shutter was down, which is how the accused had recorded videos of her changing, without her knowledge. It was also stated by the A.G.A that under duress of making the video clips viral, the accused had taken signatures of the complainant on number of papers.

“No case for bail is made out”, mentioned the court in the order after considering arguments of both parties.

 

 

Similar News