1 2025:CGHC:2498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 66 of 2025 Sofiya Khan W/o Salim Khan Aged About 52 Years R/o Gorakhpur, Tahsil Pendraroad, District G.P.M. Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Gaurela (Wrongly Mentioned in Order-sheet As Marwahi), District G.P.M. Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 15 .01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 434/2024, registered at Police Station – Gaurela, District- G.P.M. (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, the complainant, Ramvati, lodged a written report on 26.12.2024, alleging that 35 members of a women’s self-help group, residents of village Nevri-Navapara, were cheated by RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.16 15:32:23 +0530 2 the applicant. In 2023, the applicant claimed to be a bank agent and promised to arrange loans for them to start their own businesses from Federal Bank, Fusion Bank, Gram Shakti Bank, and Pragati Bank. A week later, the applicant visited their village with a woman named Mamta, who claimed to be an employee of Federal Bank, and had all the women fill out loan application forms for Rs. 40,000/- each. After one and a half months, Sofia, along with agents of the other mentioned banks, visited the village and facilitated the filling out of additional loan forms for the women. After the loans were approved, the applicant informed the women that the money had been credited to their accounts and that the loans could be closed, assuring them that they would not have to repay the loans. However, after six months, the banks contacted the complainants and other women, demanding repayment of the loan amounts, as the loans had not been closed. It is alleged that the applicant deceived these women under the pretext of arranging loans. Based on the written complaint, Police Station Gaurela registered a case against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the applicant did not meet any woman other than Sangeeta Dhruve, even the applicant does not know the complainant. He further submits that the applicant is 52 years woman, she has goodwill not only in the society and any kind of arrest will not only damage her goodwill but also her entire family for no fault of her/others. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal background or record. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant deceived all women under the pretext of arranging loans. Therefore, she is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present matter. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material on record in the case diary also considering the fact that the applicant deceived all women under the pretext of arranging loans, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Sofiya Khan, involved in Crime No. 434/2024, registered at Police Station – Gaurela, District- G.P.M. (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan