IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.927 of 2011 MD. SHAMIM, Son of Sk. Anwarul Haque, Resident of village – Piparpati, P.s. Ramgarhwa, District East Champaran ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ambari Begam, D/o Sk. Jainul Haque, , W/o Md. Shamim, Resident of village – Piparpati, P.s. Ramgarhwa, District East Champaran , at present R/o village Laxmipur, P.S. Sugauli, District East Champaran …. Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Ram Adya Singh & Pramod Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Umanath Mishra, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate ------- 5 07.04.2011 It appears that typographical error has occurred in first sentence of the third paragraph of order dated 13.01.2011 as the word “owner” has been typed in place of “honour”. Let the word “honour” be read in place of the word “owner”. The order dated 13.01.2011 is modified to the aforesaid extent only. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as well as opposite party no. 2. The petitioner-husband and the opposite party no. 2-wife are present in person before this Court. 2 This matter was earlier taken up on 13.01.2011 and on that occasion, it had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to keep his wife extending full dignity and honour. However, that could not be done as the wife has already remarried one Majare Alam. In support of its submission, a typed translated copy of the Nikahnama has been annexed as Annexure 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel had produced the original copy of Nikahnama. Upon such submission, provisional anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner and notice was issued to opposite party no. 2. She has appeared in response thereto. Today also, it has been urged on behalf of the husband-petitioner that the wife has remarried. However, the wife has denied and refuted this allegation by filing affidavit. It is submitted on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner nowhere has stated that he has divorced her. Therefore, being a Muslim girl, she cannot remarry without having been divorced. Secondly, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 pointed out that even if for the time being, it is assumed that such Nikah is in 3 existence, then how the original Nikahnama has come in possession of the petitioner is surprising . The Nikahnama has again been produced at the time of hearing on 6.4.2011 and has been ordered to be kept on record. On being asked, petitioner submitted that he has got a copy of the original Nikahnama and the same is not original one. But the said averment does not have any leg to stand inasmuch as the Nikahnama bears original thumb impression of the husband and wife and it goes to show that the same is original. From the form of alleged Nikahnama also prima facie it appears that the same is original one and the petitioner does not have any explanation as to how he has come in occupation of that document. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the whole thing indicates that a forged document has been created by the petitioner for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail. That apart, in the order dated 13.1.2011 it has been recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the original Nikahnama for perusal of court, thus, the petitioner, now, cannot take a stand that the copy of original has been produced. I find force in the submission made on behalf of 4 the opposite party. Petitioner does not have any explanation as to how the original Nikahnama has come in his possession. The wife has categorically denied having been married with any Majare Alam and has stated that the said Nikahnama is created one. In above view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner has not shown his conduct which entitles him grant of anticipatory bail in this case. Accordingly, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. The provisional bail granted earlier to the petitioner vide order dated 13.1.2011 is hereby cancelled and the petitioner is directed to surrender within three weeks from today before the concerned Court. Let the original Nikahnama be kept in sealed cover and sent to the trial court along with a copy of this order for doing needful. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)