Anticipatory bail under the Muslim Women Act remains available where the statute does not expressly exclude pre-arrest protection.

Section 7(c) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 was construed as a procedural safeguard, not an express exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that the provision's non obstante clause did not bar pre-arrest bail and that, absent clear legislative language, the power to grant anticipatory bail remains available subject to hearing the complainant. On the facts, the allegations against the appellant, a mother-in-law, were found to be general and unsupported, and the alleged offence under the Act was directed at the husband who pronounces talaq. Anticipatory bail was therefore warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory scheme governing offences under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory scheme governing offences under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 bars the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 7(c) uses a non obstante clause, but its operation is confined to the procedure laid down in that provision. The requirement that the married Muslim woman be heard and that the court be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for bail does not amount to an express exclusion of anticipatory bail. The Act does not contain any specific provision making Section 438 inapplicable, and the statutory text was read harmoniously to preserve the court's power to consider pre-arrest bail, subject to hearing the complainant.

Conclusion: Section 7(c) does not bar anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The alleged offence under the Act is committed by the Muslim husband who pronounces talaq, not by the mother-in-law. The allegations under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code were found to be general and vague. The court also noted the absence of substance in the domestic violence proceedings against the appellant. In these circumstances, denial of pre-arrest bail was not warranted.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bar was rejected, the appellant's request for pre-arrest protection was accepted, and bail was directed on specified terms.

Ratio Decidendi: An exclusionary bail provision must be construed strictly, and unless the legislature expressly bars Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, anticipatory bail remains available subject to any procedural safeguards expressly provided by the statute.

---