The Bombay High Court, upon learning that a man accused of defrauding a woman had a history of marrying four women, rejected his plea for pre-arrest bail.

The anticipatory bail application of the accused, charged under sections 406, 420, 494, 498-A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, was considered by a single-judge bench headed by Justice Sarang Kotval.

A woman filed the FIR, claiming that she discovered the applicant's profile on a matrimonial site and initiated contact. After meeting in April 2022, they eventually married on June 15, 2022.

After the marriage, the applicant purportedly requested financial aid, and the victim, in turn, provided him with Rs. 7 lakhs. Subsequently, it was claimed that the man secured a loan of Rs. 32 lakh by using the victim's ornaments as collateral. Upon investigation, she found out that the applicant had been married four times prior to their marriage, and his first wife had died.

The counsel representing the applicant contended that the accused had been married only once, and his first wife had passed away. He asserted that following the demise of his first wife, the applicant entered into marriage only once, specifically with the victim, thus deeming the allegations in the FIR as untrue.

Nevertheless, the victim's counsel intervened in the case and presented documents showcasing the applicant's multiple marriages to different women. Additionally, birth certificates were submitted, highlighting the applicant's status as the father of a child in further contradiction to the claims made by the applicant's counsel.

Upon examining the documents, the high court identified two birth certificates for two children, both attributing the applicant as the father. Notably, the certificates indicated different mothers for each child, adding a layer of complexity to the case.

Furthermore, the high court uncovered that one woman had secured a divorce decree against the applicant in 2008, while another had initiated divorce proceedings in 2018.

As a result, in rejecting the plea for pre-arrest bail, the high court asserted that there existed an evident case of cheating against the applicant.

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

Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for State/Respondent.