##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.RAMESH Rajalakshmi ..Petitioner(s)

Vs The state, Rep by The Station House Officer All Women Police Station, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest by the Respondent All Women Police Station Panruti in Crime No. 74 of 2026, 08-07- 2026 pending on the file of the respondent All women police and pass such further or other orders as this Honorable Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S. Parthibarajan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that the petitioner, Rajalakshmi, arrayed as Accused No.2, be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.74 of 2026 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Panruti, Cuddalore District. The FIR was registered on 08.07.2026 for the alleged occurrence dated 19.06.2026, for offences punishable under Sections 82, 85, 49, 296(b) and

351(2) of the BNS.

2. The case set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition is, in substance, that the de facto complainant/wife of Al, has alleged that this petitioner/A2 entered into a marriage with A1/ Mayakrishnan. The petitioner's specific case is that she had no knowledge, at the time she entered into the marriage with Mavakrishnan, that he already had a subsisting marriage with the de facto complainant; that the said fact was concealed from her: that she is, if anything, a person deceived by that concealment rather than a participant in any offence; and that she has been falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute that is essentially between the de facto complainant and Mayakrishnan.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Section 82 of the BNS reads as follows:

82. (1) Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Exception. This sub-section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.

(2) Whoever commits the offence under sub-section (1) having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shalll be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

It is seen that Section 82 BNS reproduces, in substance, former Sections

494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sub-section (1) punishes a person who, having a spouse living, marries again during the subsistence of that marriage. Sub-section (2) enhances the punishment where the offender has concealed the fact of the former marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted. 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 th