Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently denied pre-arrest bail to a man accused of duping a woman after discovering that he had previously married four women.

A single-judge bench led by Justice Sarang Kotval heard the anticipatory bail application filed by the man, who was booked under sections 406, 420, 494, 498-A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The FIR was lodged by one woman who alleged that she came across the applicant's profile on a matrimonial site, and they subsequently contacted each other. Following their meeting in April 2022, they got married on 15.06.2022.

After the marriage, the applicant allegedly sought financial assistance, and the victim provided him with Rs. 7 lakhs. It was further alleged that the man obtained a loan of Rs. 32 lakhs by pledging the victim's ornaments.

In December 2022, the victim grew suspicious that the applicant was having an affair with his colleague. Consequently, she returned to her parental house on 05.01.2023.

After making inquiries, she discovered that the applicant had been married four times before marrying her and that his first wife had passed away.

The counsel representing the applicant argued that the applicant had been married only once, and his first wife had passed away. According to him, after the death of his first wife, the applicant married only once, i.e., with the victim, making the allegations in the FIR false.

However, the counsel for the victim intervened in the case and submitted documents that displayed the applicant's marriages to other women, along with birth certificates indicating the applicant as the father of a child.

Upon perusal of the documents, the high court discovered two birth certificates for two children, both listing the applicant as the father, but with different mothers.

The high court also found that one woman had obtained a divorce decree against the applicant in 2008, and another had initiated divorce proceedings in 2018.

Consequently, while denying pre-arrest bail, the high court stated that there was a clear case of cheating against the applicant.

“Thus, there is sufficient material to show that the applicant has cheated many women. All this was concealed from the present first informant. Therefore, the offence of cheating is clearly made out apart from other offences. No case for grant of anticipatory bail order is made out,” the order reads.

Dr. Samarth S. Karmarkar a/w. Janathan D’Silva i/b. Karmarkar and Associates for Applicant.

Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for State/Respondent.

Mr. Durivendra Dubey a/w. Mr. Dileep Vishwakarma i/b. Shashikant Dubey for Intervenor

Case title: Shantilal Yashwant Kharat vs State of Maharashtra