Supreme Court: In a case where a woman has been accused of the offence of bigamy, the bench of AS Bopanna and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has ordered continuation of the anticipatory bail granted by it till the conclusion of the investigation and trial thereafter, if need be, keeping in view the nature of the allegations. The Court has, however, directed the woman to diligently participate in the investigation and also comply with the conditions under Section 438 (2) CrPC.
In the case at hand, the woman has alleged that she has been falsely implicated in a case of bigamy and cheating, on the basis of a clerical mistake committed by the agent of the Axis bank, wherein the agent of the bank while filling the account opening form, mistakenly entered the name of one person, namely Vikas Singh, as her husband and Nominee.
Apprehending her arrest in the matter, the woman approached the District Court, Chhatarpur for the anticipatory bail, but the Court dismissed the application vide order dated 13.06.2022. On 13.07.2022, the Madhya Pradesh High Court also dismissed her anticipatory bail application.
It is her case that she herself has been a victim of the conspiracy concocted by her husband and his family, who have been demanding dowry from her family and harassing and torturing her on account of same.
She has also claimed that there are immoral relations between her husband and his cousin and when she objected to the same, she was told that she will have to adjust to this lifestyle. The husband also avoided the registration of marriage on several occasions and left for Dubai without her. She also claims that she was once left to her maternal home and her family was told that she will not come back alive to Kanpur if she is sent back to her matrimonial home without Rs. 10 Lakhs.
The husband on the other hand had contended that the petitioner is already married to Vikas Singh and that there is transfer of money from the bank account of the petitioner to his bank account.
She, however, states that, she, along with Vikas Singh, had started a business of selling and repairing computers and mobiles leading to transactions of money transfer from her bank account to Vikas Singh’s bank account. She also borrowed some money from Vikas Singh in her professional capacity which was later returned to Vikas Singh via bank transfer.
[Akanksha Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9157/2022, order dated 13.12.2022]
For Petitioner(s): Namit Saxena, AOR,
Awnish Maithani, Adv.
Prateek Gupta, Adv.
Shiksha A, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mukul Singh, DAG
Anuradha Mishra, GA
Rajesh K Singh, Adv.
Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv.
