Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal v. State of U.P., 2026

The prosecution case concerned the death of the applicant's alleged second wife, who had died after consuming poison. The applicant contended that the deceased was his second wife and that the second marriage had taken place while his first wife was alive and the first marriage was subsisting.

According to the applicant, this made the second marriage void, and therefore he could not legally be regarded as the deceased's “husband” for purposes of Sections 80 and 85 BNS. He also submitted that there was no criminal history, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Because this raised an important question concerning the meaning of “husband” under the new criminal-law provisions, the Court first framed a preliminary legal issue before deciding the bail application on its merits.

It noted that in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, the Supreme Court had adopted a purposive interpretation of “husband” under Sections 498A and 304B IPC so that a person who entered into a marital relationship under the apparent status of husband could, in appropriate circumstances, fall within those provisions even where the marriage was legally questionable.

However, the Court also considered the later three-Judge Bench decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that where the marriage itself was null and void, prosecution under Section 498A IPC against the alleged husband was not sustainable. The Court further relied upon P. Sivakumar v. State, where the Supreme Court followed that principle.

The Allahabad High Court held that the larger Bench decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma must prevail over the earlier contrary approach in Reema Aggarwal. It also relied upon the principle that penal provisions must be strictly construed, particularly where two reasonable interpretations are possible.

The Court therefore concluded that, ordinarily, the expression “husband” under Sections 80 and 85 BNS refers to a legally married man and does not include a person whose alleged marriage itself is void.

The Court nevertheless identified exceptions. Where there is doubt concerning the first marriage, or where a man conceals his existing valid marriage from the second woman and induces her to live with him as his wife, he may still be treated as a “husband” for the purposes of Sections 80 and 85.

The Court also discussed the position under different marriage laws and observed that a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act, Christian Marriage Act and Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. It separately noted the position under Muslim Personal Law, where marriages within the limits permitted by Sharia law may be valid.

After deciding the preliminary legal question, the Court proceeded to the bail issue and allowed the bail application.

The judgment is particularly significant because it addresses the apparent tension between Reema Aggarwal and Shivcharan Lal Verma. The Allahabad High Court reasoned that the latter was a three-Judge Bench, whereas Reema Aggarwal was decided by a smaller Bench; therefore, the later larger-Bench position had to prevail. The Court also noted that P. Sivakumar subsequently relied upon Shivcharan Lal Verma.

The Court observed that “husband” is not specifically defined in the relevant statute and relied upon its ordinary legal meaning. On that reasoning, a legally void marriage ordinarily cannot create the legal status of husband for purposes of husband-specific penal provisions.

The judgment does not create an absolute rule that every person in a second marriage is outside Sections 80 and 85 BNS. The Court expressly recognized situations involving doubt about the first marriage and concealment of the existing marriage from the second wife. In the latter situation, the Court reasoned that a person should not be permitted to benefit from his own concealment or wrongdoing.

The ruling on the legal question formed an important part of the applicant's bail case. The Court then considered the broader bail factors, including the nature of the allegations, evidence, the applicant's alleged involvement, overcrowding of prisons, pendency of criminal cases, filing of the charge-sheet and other circumstances. It expressly stated that it was not expressing an opinion on the ultimate merits of the criminal case.

The decision provides an important interpretation of how the newly enacted BNS provisions corresponding to Sections 498A/304B IPC may operate where the alleged matrimonial relationship is legally void. It places particular emphasis on legally recognized marital status, strict construction of penal provisions, hierarchy of precedent and the protection of accused persons from expansion of criminal liability beyond statutory language.