Patna High Court
MD. GULFAM MUSTAFA @ MD. GULFAM @ MD. GULFANversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The High Court affirmed the confirmation of anticipatory bail and set aside the revision order, holding that the alleged second‑marriage evidence was not proven by cogent evidence.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Gulfam Mustafa, was granted provisional anticipatory bail by this Court in 2015, which was confirmed by the Special District Judge, Khagaria, in 2016 subject to conditions including the absence of proof of a second marriage. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage and produced a photocopy of a Gram Panchayat certificate to that effect, prompting the Sessions Judge to set aside the bail in a 2017 revision order. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. asserting that the certificate was forged and that no substantive evidence of a second marriage existed. The High Court examined the dispute over the genuineness of the certificate and held that such a claim must be established by cogent evidence, which was lacking. Consequently, the Court affirmed the confirmation of anticipatory bail, set aside the revision order, and allowed the petition.
Issues considered
- When the petitioner’s provisional anticipatory bail has been confirmed, can a revision court set it aside on the basis of a photocopied Gram Panchayat certificate alleging a second marriage?
- Is a photocopy of a Panchayat certificate sufficient proof of a second marriage, or must the genuineness be established by cogent evidence?
- Does Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code empower this Court to quash the revision order and restore the bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- provisional bail
- second marriage
- forgery
- criminal revision
- Section 482
- bail confirmation
- maternity dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19423 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1131 Year-2013 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE
District- Khagaria
======================================================
Md. Gulfam Mustafa @ Md. Gulfam @ Md. Gulfan S/o Md. Hashim, R/o
Village- Sahashi, P.S.- Allouli, District- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bibi Sabiba Khatoon W/o Md. Gulfam D/o Md. Ekramul Haque, R/o
Village- Marar Dakchhin, P.S.- Morkahi, District- Khagaria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
8 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria (hereinafter referred to as
‘Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2016,
whereby the revision was allowed by setting aside the order
dated 01.06.2016 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Khagaria in
Complaint Case No. 1131(C) of 2013 by which the provisional
anticipatory bail of the petitioner was confirmed which was
granted by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.05.2015
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15549 of 2019.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19423 of 2018(8) dt.21-04-2026
2/4
3. It transpires from the records that in Cr. Misc. No.
15549 of 2015, this Court has granted the provisional
anticipatory bail to the petitioner for one year with direction that
the provisional anticipatory bail will be confirmed in three
eventualities i.e. “(i) if the matrimonial harmony is
substantially restored, (ii) if the complainant fails to appear
before the learned court below or (iii) if the complainant gets
reluctant to reconcile the issue and it was further made
condition that provisional anticipatory bail will not be
confirmed if substantive proof is brought on record that the
petitioner has performed second marriage.”
4. It appears that vide order dated 01.06.2016, learned
S.D.J.M., Khagaria confirmed the provisional anticipatory bail
granted to the petitioner. In the said order, it is held that the
petitioner had offered to keep his wife but the complainant
denied to reside with her husband alleging that he has
solemnized the second marriage. The Court also observed that
there is no adequate proof of second marriage of the petitioner.
Against the said order, the complainant filed a revision petition
in the learned Trial Court stating that the learned S.D.J.M.,
Khagaria had confirmed the provisional anticipatory bail of the
petitioner without appreciating that she has produced the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19423 of 2018(8) dt.21-04-2026
3/4
certificate granted by the Gram Panchayat with regard to the re-
marriage of the petitioner. The learned Revisional Court in the
impugned order dated 02.11.2017 held that photostat copy of
certificate was produced by the complainant on record with
respect to re-marriage of the petitioner and she has filed an
affidavit also in this regard and accordingly, there is ample
evidence that the petitioner has performed the second marriage
and on this ground, criminal revision was allowed and the order
of the learned S.D.J.M. was set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions for confirmation of the
provisional anticipatory bail granted by this Court and he has
not solemnized his second marriage as alleged. Accordingly, on
the basis of fake certificate, the cancellation of anticipatory bail
granted to the petitioner is not justified and liable to be set aside.
He next submits that photocopy of the Panchayat certificate is
forged, fabricated and manufactured and the complainant has no
valid proof that the petitioner has solemnized his second
marriage. He also submits that the petitioner undertakes to
cooperate in the trial.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the
complainant may prove in the trial that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19423 of 2018(8) dt.21-04-2026
4/4
solemnized his second marriage.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned A.P.P. for the State, it appears that the provisional
anticipatory bail for one year was granted by this Court and on
fulfilling the conditions, the learned S.D.J.M., Khagaria has
confirmed the said bail, however, considering the fact that the
photocopy of the certificate of the second marriage of petitioner
was filed on record by the complainant, learned Trial Court has
allowed the criminal revision petition.
8. When there is a dispute with respect to genuineness
of the certificate, the same can be proved by the cogent evidence
only. The petitioner has specifically denied his second marriage.
The confirmation of the bail by the learned S.D.J.M., Khagaria
is affirmed and the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the learned
Trial Court in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2016 is set aside.
9. Accordingly, the present Cr. Misc. Application is
allowed.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…