In an application filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail regarding a FIR under Sections 82(2)/115(2)/318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Madhu Jain denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The complainant submitted that despite the directions issued by the Court by an order dated 05-06-2026, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the complainant, no amount had been deposited by the petitioner till date and that he continued to enjoy the interim protection granted by the Court.
The petitioner submitted that he was not in a position to deposit the said amount and that he would be able to deposit the same within six months. It was also contended that the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 318 BNS, as there was no specific allegation of cheating against him and that the allegation arose out of financial transactions between the parties.
Allegedly, the petitioner had married the complainant in 2017, while his earlier marriage was still subsisting. The complainant submitted that the petitioner intentionally and deceitfully induced the complainant to enter into marriage with him, and that he had also concealed the fact that he had three children from his earlier marriage. Further, the complainant submitted that she bore the household expenses and that two children, a son and a daughter were also born from the marriage between complainant and the petitioner.
It was further submitted that the petitioner induced the complainant to avail loans from various banks and caused the amounts so obtained to be transferred to his account, either in cash or through bank transfers and utilised the same for his personal purposes. As on date, the complainant was required to pay EMIs of approximately Rs. 47,000/- per month, despite being a government employee.
The Court refused to accept that the dispute was essentially for financial transactions and that no offence of cheating was made out. It was stated that whether the requisite ingredients of the offence under Section 318 BNS are ultimately established is a matter which would have to be examined based on the material collected during investigation. The Court also found it to be relevant that the investigation was still underway and that the chargesheet had not been filed.
It was stated that Section 174(4) BNSS specifically provides that where a case is related to two or more offences, of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case. The Court noted that in the present FIR, Section 318(4), BNS was a cognizable and non-bailable offence, and that no satisfactory explanation had been placed before the Court for non-compliance with the direction already issued.
Considering the circumstances, the Court stated that it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition was dismissed and the interim order was cancelled.
