HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CR.M.P. No. '3&^ /2010 iCTcsse Appticant : Nisha Meshram Complainant D/o Late Shri Ram das Meshram , Aged about 25 years, Resident at Ram Nagar Ward No. 5 Behind B.N.C. MUI Rajnandgaon Tahsil & Distt. Rannandgaon (C.G.) Vs. '?, Wt ^'o Respondents : 1. State ofChhattisgarh, ^\* Through Police station Chikhali ^<^^ 'A Disstt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^\^/'^U) 2. Joydeep Paul S/o Late Atul Paul, •'y'^T^1'^^ aged ibout 23'years R/o B- \^^ 1254,Krishna Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jamirupauli, Korba, District. Korba (C.G.) Ap'plication Under Section 482 read wifh section 439(21 of the Code Criminal Procedure 1973,for rec^Uin& the prder ^ated 22-'09-2010 oassed in M.Cr.C.fA) No. 67^/2Q10.granted bail to the respondent No.2 zp XI-HC—78 *ii*«nra»t(rai ~3 T -^WM^, ®tll-M<16,fa<11«y,< <r2'YW^'i^o-B%c?// ^^^......^..........j.......,.....................,^ sn^i'T^? (1pf3^tr) •^200 ail^l^ill^iw wnaii^iwqH; l^aiw ^ifttt SIT^I SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohari 26-Q8-2011 Shri A.K.Patil, counsel fortr Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Heard. This petition has been fii anticipatorv baii aranted to respol 22/09/2010 passed in M.Cr.C. (A) Learned counsel Tor the obtained bail by making misreprj He submits that there was no ma| Nisha Meshram and Pankaj Naj before this Court that the pet) Learned counsel further submitsl the cteDartment and me supplied to the petitioner undeil 25/10/10 ("Annexure A/6) show!) marria.qe havin.q soiemnized betl that the enauiry has reveaied between the petltioner and impression was given that the pet amounted to misrepresentation. Bail was granted to resp(; submission that respondent No.] statements ^ra^^li "RrR^f ^ 'fetsi' wiR$n ^siRrasiT^i Shrivastava, j. e petitioner. Lawyer for the State. P&nel ied by the petitioner for canceiiation of ihdent No.2 by this Court viae order dated INo.679/10. letltioner submitted that respondent No.2 ^sentation and suppressing various facts. 1-riaae sotemnized between the petitioner - (ndeo, even then respondent no.2 stated tioner was married to Panka' Namdeo. Ithat the enquiry which nas aeen made in of Pankaj Namdeo recorded and Riaht To Information viae memo dated that Pankaj did not accept any such Iween him and the petitioner. Me submits that there was no marriage soiemnized hkai Namdeo vet before this Court, an :itioner had married PanKaj Namdeo, whlch Pdnk ndent No.2 takinQ into consideratlon .the is bein.q .faisely implicated as he did not t- \ ~-F "V XI-HC—78 *11*fCTI Sh*ll^» 7£T"sii'Mlcl'if, s-nl^'iio, fs|ci|+|^< . ^-v 1AJ3- ^S (>/ I1> '•^ 200 3ii^?r'cra^ ('yFj'f'i.'f) aii^iqnlyiw TOISIT^TWWIi' ^^...^•-.- .'-.. ":K:.V ueept! proceed to marrv the prosecutnx afrairs and.h.a.cl.already married wil congicfeFatton'-oth-er aspecis of thi marriaae b'f.the Detjtioner and wfepfri wroif ii fs^t Ttepi i? sifgq an^T ipon disclosure of the fact that she had !h some other person ana aiso taxing into 3 matter. As rar as the case regardina ankai Namdeo Is concerned, even the and Ffankaj r I bv the Detiti documentSi.filaeea.;-o.Q record by t}ie petitioner herseif show that the.re was some agreeme'nf'fAi'inexure A/4) ^xecuted, which indicates the reiationship orthe'.Detitionerand fhe said Panklai Namdeo. Whether or not, there was rt(arria.ge between the parties, is a matter of enquiry \n appropriate Forum anp proceedings. Bai! was granted by tnis Couri: considerina the submissioihs made by the respondents. !t was ihe case of the respondent No.2 th^t the peiitioner married Pankai Namdeo. Therefore, in the opinlon of t(iis Court, it cannot be sald that any misreoresentation was made, sc< as to warrant cancellation of oail. petltion istherefeFe. aismissed. '''*" it'1s"i'TOWavet''to be obsei he ved that this Court nas not commented anything on the merits of the cas^ of the parties nor has decided on merits, the existence ofmamage betweefi the petitioner and Pankaj Namdeo. Sd7- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge sa