Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to woman accused of bigamy

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman allegedly accused of committing offence of bigamy under 494 IPC along with section 420 IPC.

A bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and S. Ravindra Bhat said: "Considering the fact that the state-Madhya Pradesh is the prosecuting agency and they are before this court, and further keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the fact that this court had granted interim protection to the petitioner against arrest, we deem it appropriate to continue the said interim protection till the conclusion of the investigation and trial thereafter, if need be." Advocate Namit Saxena represented the woman in the apex court. The petitioner moved the apex court challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which dismissed her anticipatory bail application.

In the apex court, the state government objected to granting of anticipatory bail stating that the accused has not joined the investigation and is absconding.

However, the bench said the woman should diligently participate in the investigation and also comply with the conditions under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The apex court in October this year had granted interim protection against arrest to the petitioner in the matter.

"This court, while directing notice to the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh on October 10, 2022, had granted interim protection against arrest to the petitioner and the permission to implead respondent no.2 (husband of the petitioner) as party to the instant proceedings was also given. The respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh, no doubt, has filed objection statement and the respondent no.2 has not yet appeared," noted the top court, in its order.

The plea, filed through Saxena, said the woman has been falsely implicated in a case of bigamy and cheating, on the basis of a clerical mistake committed by the agent of Axis Bank, wherein the agent of the bank while filling the account opening form, mistakenly entered the name of one person, as the husband and nominee of the petitioner.

"That pertinently, the error was rectified by the petitioner as soon as she came to know about the same. That vide impugned order, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed without considering that the material evidence and documents available on record and that the present case is only an afterthought of the complainant (husband)," said the plea.

It contended that the high court without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the material evidence available on record and without considering that no offence is made against the petitioner and without providing sufficient reasons for doing so, dismissed the anticipatory bail application.