Anticipatory bail may be denied where specific allegations show active participation in concealing a subsisting marriage.

The applicant, Suryachand Dubey, filed his first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Mahila Police Station, Rewa, for offences under Sections 63(4), 81, 82, 3(5), 316, 318 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and corresponding provisions of the IPC mentioned in the FIR.

The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant, the father of Ravikant Dubey, represented Ravikant as unmarried despite knowledge of his previous marriages, participated in marriage negotiations, and facilitated the prosecutrix’s marriage with him on 10 December 2018.

She alleged that Ravikant continued to have physical relations with her by inducing her to believe that she was his legally wedded wife, and that the accused persons demanded dowry and retained her jewellery and valuables.

After the police allegedly failed to register an FIR, the prosecutrix moved an application under Section 175(3) BNSS. The JMFC, Rewa, found a prima facie case and directed registration of the FIR, pursuant to which Crime No. 06/2026 was registered.

The applicant denied the marriage, claimed that the prosecutrix and Ravikant were in a consensual live-in relationship, alleged false implication and a counterblast to an earlier theft complaint, and relied on the anticipatory bail granted to certain co-accused.

The State and objector opposed bail, relying on the specific allegation that the applicant deliberately concealed Ravikant’s existing marriage and actively facilitated the alleged fraudulent marriage.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the specific role attributed to him in concealing Ravikant’s previous marriage and facilitating the alleged fraudulent marriage?

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the grounds that the allegations were vague, that the case was a counterblast, and that co-accused had been granted bail on the principle of parity?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of anticipatory bail.

In exercising this discretionary jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the specific role attributed to the applicant, and the prima facie material collected during investigation.

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of fact, including whether a marriage was solemnized, whether the prosecutrix knew of the earlier marriage, and whether the relationship was a consensual live-in relationship, ordinarily cannot be conclusively determined at the anticipatory-bail stage.

It further held that parity is not automatic where the applicant’s alleged role is materially distinct from that of the co-accused.

The Court found that the prosecution specifically alleged that the applicant knew of Ravikant’s subsisting or previous marriages, concealed that fact, represented him as unmarried, and participated in arranging the prosecutrix’s marriage.

The material collected during investigation prima facie supported this version.

The applicant’s contentions that no marriage had occurred, that the prosecutrix was aware of Ravikant’s marital status, and that the FIR was a counterblast involved disputed factual matters requiring evidentiary assessment and could not be conclusively accepted at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The grant of anticipatory bail to other accused persons did not establish parity because the applicant was attributed a distinct and active role in the alleged misrepresentation and arrangement of the marriage.

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s specific role, and the prima facie material on record, the Court declined to exercise its discretion in his favour.

The applicant’s first application for anticipatory bail was accordingly dismissed.