The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused in a matrimonial case, observing that a person who was unmarried and allegedly had no knowledge of her partner’s existing marriage cannot, at the initial stage, automatically be treated as an offender under the relevant provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice N. Ramesh passed the order on August 28, 2026, in CRL OP No. 22231 of 2026, arising from Crime No. 74 of 2026 registered by the All Women Police Station, Panruti, Cuddalore District.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 74 of 2026 registered by the All Women Police Station, Panruti, Cuddalore District. The FIR was registered on July 8, 2026, in connection with an alleged incident dated June 19, 2026. It invoked Sections 82, 85, 49, 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the petitioner's case, she had married the first accused without knowing that he already had a subsisting marriage with the complainant. She claimed that the earlier marriage had been concealed from her and that she was herself deceived by that concealment. She therefore contended that she had been falsely implicated in what was essentially a matrimonial dispute between the de facto complainant and the first accused.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, meaning protection from arrest in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR. The Court thereafter examined, among other issues, whether the allegations and the statutory provisions invoked against her justified custodial interrogation at that stage.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined Section 82 of the BNS, which deals with marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse. It noted that the provision primarily addresses the person who already has a living spouse and enters into another marriage. The Court also referred to earlier decisions concerning the corresponding provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
"On the plain language of the provision, the offender is the person who already has a living spouse; a person who is herself unmarried and marries such a person, without knowledge of the subsisting marriage, does not thereby become an offender under Section 82."
The Court further considered Section 85 of the BNS, which concerns cruelty by a husband or a relative of the husband. It observed that the petitioner was not prima facie shown to fall within the category of a relative of the husband of the de facto complainant. The Court also noted that there was no prosecution material, at that stage, showing that the petitioner knew about the existing marriage.
Decision
Justice N. Ramesh held that the petitioner had made out a case for anticipatory bail. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the prima facie assessment required at the bail stage and would not determine the merits of the prosecution case or the validity of either marriage.
The petitioner was directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or upon appearance before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Panruti, within 15 days, on executing a ₹25,000 bond with two sureties for the same amount. She was also directed to report to the respondent police daily at 10:30 a.m. for four weeks.
