2025:JHHC:19354 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3134 of 2025 ---- Preeti Saxena, aged about 50 years, wife of Sanwill Srivastava, resident of Sai Kripa, Srivastava House, Near B.I.T. Mesra, P.O. B.I.T. Mesra, P.S. B.I.T. Mesra (O.P.), District Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … ... Opposite Party ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ---- 04/ 16.07.2025 This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending her arrest in connection with Mandar P.S. Case No. 44 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate XII, Ranchi. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner and others approached the informant Rashmi Tirkey and others at Sant Anna Inter College, Mandar, claiming to be employees of Istruzion Edutech Services Pvt. Ltd. claiming to be funded and protected by UK-based company, Gray Stewart Family Foundation LLC and promised to provide education, housing, and vehicles to the needy through charity. The victims were asked to invest money for laptops, two-wheelers, and other items. Based on these false promises and fake documents, the victims deposited Rs.5,04,636/- in the bank accounts of accused at Ranchi. However, the promised items were never provided, and the accused is now absconding. It was later discovered that several criminal cases for cheating are already pending against the co-accused in different Courts. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is neither a Director nor an employee of the company and has been made an accused only because she is the wife of 2025:JHHC:19354 -: 2 :- one of the Directors. He further submits that the petitioner had no role in the alleged offence. He also submits that there is no evidence showing that the petitioner was involved in any transaction or that she had any intent to cheat or deceive the informant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. He contended that the petitioner took a large amount of money from the victims by falsely promising to provide goods. He further submits that the witnesses examined during course of investigation, whose statements are available in the Case Diary, have supported the prosecution case. 5. I have gone through the available records of the case including the Case Diary. I find that the petitioner is a lady. Her husband Sanwill Srivastava is one of the accused, who was involved in the offence. This petitioner is a teacher and she is neither the director nor an employee of the company, which assured supply of materials to the schools. The allegation against this petitioner is that she had accompanied Sanwill Srivastava to all schools where assurance was given by Sanwill Srivastava that materials will be supplied. The bank account of Indusind Bank is in the name of the company, which was opened by the husband of this petitioner. Further, from the records of this case, I find that the petitioner has replied to the notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita twice, which means that she is cooperating with the investigation. 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady and also the fact that it is the Company, which had cheated the schools and the petitioner is neither the director nor an employee of the company, rather it is Sanwill Srivastava, i.e., the husband of this petitioner, who was acting on behalf of the Company, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. The petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within four weeks from today and in the event of her surrender and/or arrest, she shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate XII, Ranchi in connection with Mandar Police Station Case No. 44 of 2025, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of the State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his own name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he 2025:JHHC:19354 -: 3 :- has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. Further, the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer, once in every 15 days till submission of the chargesheet. 7. This anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, allowed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03