Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned Counsels for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners in these three applications are the husbands of the respective complainants, in custody, in complaint cases instituted under Sections 498A and 323, 379 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code variously and Secs. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The allegations in the first case is that dowry was paid during marriage. From day one the complainant was harassed in various ways. She was beaten up and denied food. The accused did not behave properly with her and subjected her to harassment both physically and mentally for dowry. She was left alone at the bus stand. The allegation in the second case is that after the marriage dowry was demanded and paid. Further demands were made. The complainant was beaten and chased away from the matrimonial home. Her father was abused and they were pushed around. The accusation in the third case is that dowry was paid during the marriage. Demands for further dowry were made. The complainant after the marriage discovered that her husband was already married. On objection by her, further dowry was demanded and she was assaulted.

4. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 13402 of 2006 is in custody since 15.2.2006. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 13505 of 2006 is in custody since 29.1.2006 and the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 13614/2006 is in custody since 8.9.2005.

5. These three applications arise from three different districts of Bihar, Jehanabad, Banka and Vaishali. The bail applications have been rejected by the Court of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court.

6. The Courts below in all the three applications have similarly reasoned that the petitioners were the husbands. Cognizance had been taken after enquiry and that the applications of the petitioners for anticipatory bail had been rejected by the High Court.

7. The law with regard to grant or rejection of bail stands well settled now. This Court will only refer to a Supreme Court judgment (Ram Govind Uppadhyay V/s. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.) at para 3 holding that grant of bail is a discretionary matter calling for its exercise in a judicious manner. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations apart from others. The more heinous the offence, the greater the chance of rejection depending on the facts of a case. Further the Supreme Court (Prahlad Singh Bhati V/s. NCT Delhi and Anr.) has held that it was only appropriate that in Sessions triable cases, the grant of bail be considered by the Sessions Court (Sec. 439) and not by the Magistrate (Sec. 437) The allegations u/s. 323 is bailable. While Sections 379,406 and 498A are non-bailable. The allegations conmstituting non-bailable offences in my opinion cannot be said to be grave or heinous as the offences under all the sections is triable by a Magistrate.

8. sec. 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the powers of the Magistrate for grant of bail where offences are bailable. sec. 437 of the Code deals with the powers of the Magistrate to grant of bail in non-bailable offences. It provides that where a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained and is brought before a court other than a High Court or a Court of Sessions, he may be released on bail, but he may not be released on bail if he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if in a cognizable offence he has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death/imprisonment for life/imprisonment for seven years or more/previously convicted on two or more occasions of a nonbailable and cognizable offence. sec. 439 deals with the powers of the Sessions Court as also the High Court to grant bail. A bare comparative perusal of Secs. 437 and 439 of the Code makes it apparent that generally the Code contemplates grant of bail to the accused by the Magistrate for offences other than limited by Sec. 437(1) of the Code. The restrictions on the power