The legality and feasibility of a petitioner's offer to keep both wives with him, in the context of bigamy and cessation of maintenance, influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition for pre-arrest bail.

JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State and Mr. Priyesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Paroo PS Case No. 287 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015, instituted under Sections 493/376/341/323/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had married the opposite party no. 2 in a temple on 06.04.2014 and had kept the opposite party no. 2 at a rented place and they lived together as husband and wife and thereafter, on 26.04.2014, the petitioner went for training in the Army but kept the informant in a room at Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner returned and kept the informant at a hotel at Hajipur and then went to Ahmadnagar in Maharashtra for training in the Army and the informant became pregnant. Further, it is stated that the petitioner kept her in hotel and came from time to time and on 31.07.2015 had called her to his house and she was assaulted by the accused persons and driven out and also threatened. However, on 20.08.2015 she was called by the petitioner and kept in a rented room at Hajipur and used to send maintenance money to her but later stopped giving any money and also did not talk on phone.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is in the Army and, thus, has to keep going to his place of posting and that the allegations made are not correct. It was submitted that he is ready to keep the informant and the child with him with full dignity, honour and security.

6. On 13.07.2021, in view of the statement made by the opposite party no. 2 in her counter affidavit that the petitioner had married another girl, namely, Arti Kumari @ Baby, the Court had asked learned APP to obtain the legible photocopy of the entire case diary of the present case as well as a detailed report with regard to whether the petitioner had married the other lady. The same has been submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.

7. When the Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to how on 13.07.2021, he had taken a stand that the allegation of having performed second marriage is incorrect and it is only the suspicion of the opposite party no. 2, as has been recorded at paragraph no. 8 of the order dated 13.07.2021, he submitted that such stand was as per his instructions.

8. Learned APP, placing the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, stated that the enquiry has revealed that the petitioner has married the said lady on 15.07.2016 and there is also a child born out of the wedlock.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence is made out under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as the parties were married to each other. Further, he reiterated that the petitioner was ready to keep the opposite party no. 2 with him.

10. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that witnesses have supported the fact of marriage of the petitioner with opposite party no. 2 and in fact one of the witnesses on 17.12.2015 had stated that the parents of the petitioner had at that time taken a stand that the opposite party no. 2 had never been brought by their son to the matrimonial home, but if the same was correct, they would not have any objection to accepting the opposite party no. 2 as the wife of their son.

11. On this, when the Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to under what circumstances, the petitioner married another girl on 15.07.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer.

12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that she has also been blessed with a child and though the petitioner used to send money earlier, but now no maintenance is being given to her due to which she is in dire financial condi