Dismissed

Smt.Renu Bajpayi @ Renu Awasthi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2009CRMP/451/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected an application filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the non-applicant respondent, holding that no grounds for cancellation were made out.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the non-applicant respondent No.2 was rejected.

		m^{W ('wi'mi'm}
‘ a	mm.”4	mmmm§y V W%m;m@#mf3fmt LJusfice
		(Single ^{Bench; Hogble Mr} 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. f

m^{W ('wi'mi'm}

‘
a

mm.”4

mmmm§y
V
W%m;m@#mf3fmt
LJusfice

(Single ^{Bench; Hogble Mr}
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.
f

	Mm(Wu) '
K mh'n fraw am 31mW	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

Mm(Wu)
'

K
mh'n fraw
am 31mW

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

Smt.Renu Bajpayi @ Renu Awasthi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Renu Bajpayi @ Renu Awasthi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash Sharma Vs Smt.Nita Mishra and Ors.

Hardik Kakkad Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Praveen Kumar Vs Ajit Kumar Lakra

Ku.Rekha Prasad Vs Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavi.and Ors.

New Gopal Stores Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Hirendra Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs Vedvyas and Ors.