HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ") t\ Complainant Non-applicant: Cr.lVI.P.No.182of2011 Renu Tamboli, D/o Mohitram Tamboli, aged 20 years, R/p Nayapara, Kirtinagar Sirgitti, P.S.-Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Biiaspur (CG) -Versus- 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2. Radhelal, S/o Punauram Nirmalkar, Caste-Ghobi, aged 27 years, R/o Nayapara, Kirtinagar, Sirgitti, P.S. Tarbahar, Bi!aspur (C-G) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. Ms. Naushana Ali, counsel for the applicant. Mr. An/ind Shukla, PL for the State. The applicant has filed this application under Sectfon 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and prayed for cancellation of bail order dated 03.01.2011, whereby iearned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has reieased the non-applicant No.2 on baii. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the report of the applicant, offence under Section 376 of IPC was registered aaainst the non-aDD'icant No.2. However, learned Sesslons .Judae has ciranted baii bv ths Impuaned order on the basis of sr'eaed agreement betwesn tne app'icant and brother of the non-appllcant No.2. 3. From perusal of She ailegations in the complaint, it would be evjdent that non-applicant No.2 developed physicat relationship with the applicant on the promise of marriage. After he was released on baii, he declined to marry her and threatened her to withdraw the comptaint. The applicant has already lodged the complaint before the Police and thereafter she moved the application for cancel!ation of bail before iearned Sessions Judge. However, his application for ss cancellation has also been rejected by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure A-5). -k 4. Heard learned counsel for the appiicant. Perused the bail order of Annexure A-1 as well as order of Annexure A-5, whereby application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant has been rejected. 5. From perusal of the allegations itself, it is evident that the reiationship between the appticant and the non-applicant No.2 continued for a period of 4 years and report was lodged only after the non-applicant No.2 refused to marry her. The age of the applicant has also been considered by tearned Sessions Judge while granting bail. 6. !n these circumstances, 1 am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in the bail granted to the non-applicant No.2. Accordingty, the application is rejected. 'SST Dhirendra Mishra Judge