Cheating case: Bombay High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of marrying at least five women

The Bombay High Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man in a cheating case after it found that he had married at least five women and concealed the same [Shantilal Yashwant Kharat v State of Maharashtra]..Justice Sarang V Kotwal concluded there was sufficient material to show that the accused (applicant) had cheated many women.“No case for grant of anticipatory bail order is made out,” the Court said.The accused, Shantilal Yashwant Kharat had approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered by the Raigad police last year on a complaint moved by his wife..As per the complainant, she met Kharat in April 2022 through a matrimonial site and two months later, they married. After marriage, the accused allegedly sought financial help from the complainant and she gave him ₹ 7 lakhs. He also obtained a loan of ₹ 32 lakhs by pledging her ornaments, the complainant said.The complainant later suspected that the accused was having an affair with his colleague and went back to her parental house in January 2023. She further found that the accused had married four times before marrying her and that his first wife had passed away, as per the complaint. .On the basis of the complaint, the Police registered a case under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code including for cheating, bigamy and criminal breach of trust.However, the accused told the Court that his wife had passed away and thereafter, he had only married the complainant and no one else.On the other hand, the counsel representing the complainant submitted that there were documents showing that the accused had married other women..The Court perused the documents produced before it by the Police and found that the accused had not only married other women but was also the father of two children.“... there are two birth certificates in the year 2009 in respect of two girls in which mothers were different but the father is the applicant himself,” the Court noted.It also took into account the documents showing divorce proceedings dating back to 2008 and 2018 in relation to the accused.“All this was concealed from the present first informant. Therefore, the offence of cheating is clearly made out apart from other offences,” the Court while dismissing the plea..Advocate Dr. Samarth Karmarkar represented the accused.Advocate Dwivendra Dubey represented the complainant. Additional Public Prosecutor Mahalakshmi Ganapathy represented the State..[Read Order]