Xl-HCé’i 8 w @W mW ('wi'mi'm ‘ amm.”4 mmmm§y V W%m;m@#mf3fmt (Single Bench; Hogble Mr LJusfice Dhirendr'a Mishrd) Cr M P No 451/2009 (Applica’rion U/s 439 (2) of Cr'.P.C.) Smj. Renu Bajpayi @ Renu Awasfhi, W/o Shrf R vi Kumar Bajpayi, Aged abouf 3O year's, resen‘Hy residing a‘r “Vidya Niwus", Anand Nagar, Hoshangabad,. Tahsil and DisTric Hoshangabad (M.P.) 1. Sta of Chhu’rfisgarh, Through Police 5m ion, Bhilai,/Tahsil and DisTricT Durgxxf 2. Ravi Bajpayi, S/o Shri Rajendm Kuma?‘’ Baj yi,' Aged abou'r 32 year‘s, Resident of lock 9/B (B—lrType) Road Avenue-B, Sec or-7, Bhilai‘, Tehsil and DisTricf Durg (as? ' r Preserrr: . i Applicam' Vs Mr. Anumeh Shrivos’rova, Advbca‘re for The applicant Mr. Avinash K Mishr‘a, Panel Lawyer for ’rhe S‘rm‘e. ) s Non-apolicants 01.09.2009 1' Heard. The applican‘r has filedj ’rhis applica’rion under SecTion 439 (2) of Cr‘.P.C. for cancellafion of regular bail gram‘ed To non—applicant No.2 vide order of Annexure.A-1 da’red 1.7.2009 passed by The learned Judicial Magis‘rra’re 1“ Class, Durg. l l l l i . .‘Law. e . mi. M f mm w 200 Mm (Wu) K mh'n fraw am 31m W mmmm ' -— {EJ— WWWTWgvamz $Wm Learned counsel for- fh applican‘r submits fha‘r non-applicanf No.2 ob’rained an’ricipa’rory ail from 'rhis Court vide order of Annexure A-2'dafed 16.6.200 by misrepresem‘ing The fac’rs and on the basis of order of Annex e A—2, order granting regular bail To non—applican’r No.2 was pass d by fhe frial courT. He fur‘rher * v submi’rs Thaf The applican’r’ ad ob’rained an’ricipa’rory bail on ’rhe ground of filing application u der' Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage x Act and onta further ground hat they had sent notice of Annexure A-7 to the complainant. I have heard learned ounsel for the applicant on admission. I have perused the order of nnexure A-Z passed by this Court as alsa the impugned order of hnnexure A-1 granting reguiar baiL‘to non—applicant No.2. i i Offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498 of the IPC£has been registered against the non- applicant No.2. This Court extended protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to non-applicant No.2‘considering that report was lodged only after institution of suit‘ for restitution of conjugal rights and after receiving legal notice and further considering that other similarly situated persons hpve been granted anticipatory bail by l a . ., a i m mmmgm, W31 mm gi 200 Wmmaima) _ I g ma?m 33m: _ g Wéq¥g§3gmi 'rhis Court The ‘rriol couM g "owed the regular bail appliéa’ribn of, non-applicam No.2 consider'ng the fucT Thu? *he applicant is a railway employee and the o fences are not punishable with Iife imprisonment or death sente ce and the case of non—applicant No.2 herein is not different fro the other accu5ed persons who have been granted boil. After due considerati n of the reasons/assigned by the trial _court, I am of the opinion that no ground, as envisaged under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P._ . for caneeling the bail granted to non- M sw- .- c: was 3 V applicant No.2, exists, Accorfdingly, the application is rejected. Dhirendra Mishr‘a' ' Q . Judge J my