Anticipatory Bail Granted in Alleged Fraudulent Marriage Case: Supreme Court Ruling Explained

The case of Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. revolves around allegations of deception in a marital relationship, leading to charges under Sections 493 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru, ruling that since the charge sheet had already been filed, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The appellant had approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court denied his successive anticipatory bail application. The Supreme Court, considering the circumstances, directed that the appellant be released on bail in case of arrest, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR (No. 11203024220505) filed on July 16, 2022, at B-Division Police Station, Junagadh, Gujarat. The complainant (respondent no. 2), who was in a relationship with the appellant, accused him of misleading her into a marriage that was not legally registered. The allegations included:

The appellant, aged 47, had entered into what was claimed to be a marriage with the complainant.
Both the appellant and the complainant had been married twice before.
The complainant alleged that she was deceived into believing that the marriage was valid.
The appellant had sexual relations with her under the false pretense of marriage.

Based on these allegations, the police registered the case under Section 493 (cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) and Section 376(2)(n) (rape with repeated intercourse with the same woman) of the IPC.

Legal Proceedings and Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Virat Popat, contended that:

The relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual.
The complainant was aware that the marriage was not registered.
The appellant had already joined the investigation and cooperated with the authorities.
Since the charge sheet had been filed, custodial interrogation was not required.

Respondent-State’s Arguments

The State’s counsel, relying on an additional affidavit by the Investigating Officer, submitted that:

The investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed.
There was sufficient evidence against the appellant.
Given the nature of the allegations, anticipatory bail should not be granted.

Complainant’s Arguments

The complainant’s counsel, Ms. Aastha Mehta, opposed the bail plea, arguing that:

The appellant had deceived the complainant under the pretext of marriage.
The marriage was conducted as per customs but was never legally registered.
The appellant had taken advantage of the complainant’s trust and should not be granted relief.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, noted that the charge sheet had already been filed, and there was no requirement for custodial interrogation at this stage.

“Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and to the fact that now the charge-sheet has already been filed but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are inclined to accept the present appeal.”

The Court ruled that in the event of the appellant’s arrest, he should be released on bail, provided he meets the conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

“Hence, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in connection with the F.I.R. No. 11203024220505 dated 16.07.2022, registered at Police Station-B-Division, District-Junagadh, he shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.”

Key Legal Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms certain legal principles:

Anticipatory bail can be granted when the charge sheet is filed, and further custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
The Court did not dismiss the allegations but ruled that the petitioner’s liberty should be protected while the trial continues.
The ruling emphasizes that if the appellant violates bail conditions, the State can apply for cancellation of bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail ensures that personal liberty is not unduly curtailed while allowing the legal process to take its course. The judgment clarifies that once the charge sheet is filed, unless there are compelling reasons, bail should be considered. The case will now proceed before the Trial Court, where the prosecution will have to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

Petitioner Name: Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru.
Respondent Name: State of Gujarat & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
Place Of Incident: Junagadh, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 17-02-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: hitesh-umeshbhai-mas-vs-state-of-gujarat-&-a-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-02-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Bela M. Trivedi
See all petitions in Judgment by Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category