Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Landmark Case Involving Second Marriage Dispute

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted anticipatory bail to Gurmeet Singh in a case arising out of FIR No.0232 of 2021 dated 21.08.2021, registered at Police Station – Bistupur, District – Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. The appellant had moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail after being charged under Sections 406, 498-A, 423 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, took into consideration the unique circumstances of the case. The FIR mentioned the year of birth of the complainant, Narendra Kaur, as 1967, while the appellant, Gurmeet Singh, was much younger and had no previous marriage.

Notably, Narendra Kaur had entered into a second marriage with Gurmeet Singh in 2018, and she claimed that the appellant had adopted her child from her first marriage. The Court also took note of the Summary Suit/Petition filed by Gurmeet Singh against Narendra Kaur for the recovery of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs only) along with interest, which was filed before the registration of the FIR.

While the Court refrained from expressing a firm opinion on the conflicting assertions and claims, it held that Gurmeet Singh had made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail. As a result, the Court directed that if the appellant was arrested in connection with the said FIR, he should be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer/trial court. The terms and conditions of the bail were to be fixed by the trial court, and Gurmeet Singh was also required to comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with the investigative procedures and ordered Gurmeet Singh to appear before the Investigating Officer on 01.08.2023 at 11.00 a.m. Furthermore, the appellant was directed to present himself whenever a notice under Section 41(A) of the Code was issued. Non-compliance with these directions could result in the cancellation of anticipatory bail, with the prosecution/informant/complainant being entitled to move the trial court for the same.

The judgment clarified that the directions and observations made therein should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in the above terms.

DATE OF DECISION: July 19, 2023

GURMEET SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.