AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest by the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85, 296(b), 82, 49 and 351(2) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.74 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and the petitioners 2 and 3 are her in-laws. The husband of the petitioner being a married person, concealed the factum of subsistence of marriage, again he re-married another woman. The petitioners 2 and 3 have arranged and participated for the second marriage of the first petitioner. Hence, the complaint.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail petition, the earlier petition having been dismissed by this Court on 28.08.2026 in Crl.O.P.No. 22232 of 2026. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Highlighting that petitioners 2 and 3 are aged persons, and that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that the first petitioner has committed the offence which attracts the ingredients of Section 82 and these petitioners 2 and 3 have participated and arranged for the second marriage of the first petitioner and that the investigation is still pending in this case and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court notes that the ingredients of Section 82 will squarely apply to the first petitioner. Furthermore, there are specific allegations against petitioners 2 and 3, who are the parents of the first petitioner, for having participated in and arranged the second marriage. It is also noted that the second accused was already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 22231 of 2026 on 28.08.2026.
In view of these facts, this Court is of the firm view that the first petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail, and the petition stands dismissed as against the first petitioner. However, taking into consideration the age and role of the second and third petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant them anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, the second and third petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti, Cuddalore District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:
If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
The second petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The third petitioner, being a woman, is exempted from daily appearance but shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;
On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 2nd petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
If the second and third petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition in respect of 1st petitioner is dismissed and in respect of 2nd and 3rd petitioners is ordered.