AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
So far as the defect nos. 4, 9(iv) and 9(v) are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the same once the situation
normalizes. As regard the rest defects are concerned, the same are ignored.
Heard Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bara Bazar (Sadar) P. S. Case No. It has
been alleged that the petitioner having introduced himself as a bachelor had established physical relationship with the informant on the pretext of
marriage. Ultimately, the marriage of the petitioner and the informant was solemnized. After the marriage. there was a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- and
from the said wedlock a child was also born. The informant later on came to know that the real name of the petitioner is Bishwajeet Singh and that he
was already married when he had solemnized marriage with the informant.
On considering the allegation made in the complaint petition and the averments made in the solemn affirmation cognizance was taken by the learned
court below for the offences punishable under Sections 493, 494, 495 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation, therefore, clearly reveals that
in spite of the petitioner being a married person had induced the complainant to solemnize marriage with him and the complainant on account of the
deceit of the petitioner started to believe the petitioner to be her lawfully married husband.
Regard being had to the above, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioners is, hereby, rejected.