IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2529 of 2010 Md. Khurshid Alam @ Khurshid Alam, son of Late Md. Anisur Rahman, resident of New Millat Colony, Sector 3, Phulwari Sharif, Police Station-Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna-801505……………………………….Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ………………………..Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 23. 03. 2010. Heard Mr. Syed M. Ashraf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khatim Raza, learned counsel for the informant as also Mr. Abhimanuyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Phulwarisharif Police Station Case No. 462 of 2009, registered under Sections 498A, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ,though, marriage between the petitioner and informant had taken place, but before lodging the F.I.R. the petitioner has already divorced the informant and that divorced has been certified by Imarat-e-Shariah, Bihar Orissa and Jharkhand, Phulwari Sharif, Patna. According to him, in view of divorce between the petitioner and the informant, relationship of wife and husband does not subsist. Hence, there is no application of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner. He has also disputed the factum of divorce between the informant and the petitioner. He claims that there has been no valid divorce between the 2 petitioner and the informant. In the aforesaid background and in view of claim of divorce made by the petitioner, the petitioner,namely, Md. Khurshid Alam @ Khurshid Alam, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from today, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in connection with Phulwari Sharif Police Station Case No. 462/2009 (G.R. No. 6198/09), subject to the conditions under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that informant shall be at liberty to seek legal remedy either under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or under the provision of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 or under provisions of any other law which may be applicable in the facts of the present case. m.p. (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)