ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 227/2017. 2. The case of the prosecution is, petitioner along with his family members approached the family members of the complainant and marriage of the petitioner and complainant was fixed by the elders. Accordingly, betrothal ceremony was performed on 26.6.2016 by the parents of the complainant which caused expenses to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the petitioner as demanded by him. Later, the petitioner used to contact the complainant over phone. While so, the complainant got the information that petitioner was having a relationship with another lady by name Champashree and when enquired about, the complainant came to know that said Champashree was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and they had married on 16.6.2016 and their marriage was also registered. When the petitioner came to know that the complainant and her family members are not willing to go further with his marriage, petitioner threatened them and filed a false complaint against the complainant and her family members stating that they had taken Rs.3,50,000/- from the petitioner and further demanded Rs.20,00,000/- from him. On the basis of said allegations, the complaint was filed by the complainant and case came to be registered for the alleged offences. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that as per the materials placed on record it is no doubt true that the petitioner had married one Champashree. He drew the attention of the Court to the documents i.e., the petition filed in M.C.No.3141/2016 by the said Champashree before the Family Court, Bangalore, which came to be allowed wherein the marriage solemnized between Chamashree and the petitioner herein is declared to be annulled and decree is also passed. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if it is assumed that petitioner was having a wife, but the said marriage has been dissolved. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if it is assumed that petitioner was having a wife, but the said marriage has been dissolved. On the false allegations, the marriage came to be cancelled, as such, the petitioner has filed the complaint dated 31.7.2017 demanding the amount and ornaments given to the complainant. As such, as a counter blast and to save from the complaint filed by the petitioner, the complainant has come up with such a false complaint subsequently. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no prima facie material placed on record. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that as per the prosecution material and also the documents produced by the petitioner himself along with the petition, it is an admitted fact that when the engagement of the petitioner with the complainant was fixed, he was already having a wife by name Champashree, which he has not disclosed to the complainant and her family members and subsequently, the complainant came to know that Champashree is the wife of the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner with the said Champashree was also registered in the marriage registration office. This clearly shows that the petitioner has cheated the complainant by making false representation to her. It is also his contention that it is only after the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, the Investigation Officer came to know of the antecedents of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. No doubt there were engagement talks between the complainant’s family and petitioner’s family to perform the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant and admittedly, some amount has been spent by the complainant’s parents as alleged in the complaint. But subsequently, when the complainant came to know that petitioner is already having a wife by name Champashree, then the complainant did not agree for the marriage. The materials show that the petitioner herein himself has filed the complaint against the complainant on 31.7.2017 demanding the amount spent and also the ornaments given to the complainant. But subsequently, when the complainant came to know that petitioner is already having a wife by name Champashree, then the complainant did not agree for the marriage. The materials show that the petitioner herein himself has filed the complaint against the complainant on 31.7.2017 demanding the amount spent and also the ornaments given to the complainant. So, it is the contention of the petitioner that present complaint is filed as a counter blast. But perusing the materials placed on record, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader, as on the date of engagement i.e., on 26.6.2016, the petitioner was already having a wife and the said marriage was not dissolved as on that date. No doubt, on the subsequent date there is a decree for dissolution of the said marriage by the competent Court. But the Court has to consider what was the position as on the date of engagement i.e., on 26.6.2016. Therefore, as per the prosecution case there is a cheating and misrepresentation by the petitioner herein. 8. It is submitted that the matter is still under investigation and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to know his antecedents as to whether he has made such promises to any other woman and cheated them. 9. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. 10. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected. In view of the dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2017 filed for interim bail does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed of.