1 2025:CGHC:3123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 94 of 2025 Smt. Rajkumari Mudliyar @ Meena W/o Natrajan Mudliyar Aged About 56 Years R/o H. No. 12, Flat-4, 2nd Floor, Ganga Amman Koel Lane, Raipeta, Chennai (Tamil Nadu) Present R/o H. No. 4/h, Street-38, Sector6, Bhilai, P.S.- Sector-6, Kotwali, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Supela, District - Durg, C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.01.2025 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who are apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1302/2024 registered at Police Station – Supela, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, a retired employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, received approximately Rs. 80,000,000/- PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.17 20:32:09 +0530 2 as retirement dues, which he deposited into a joint bank account with his wife, the applicant. However, the applicant, in collusion with her brother-in-law, allegedly obtained four cheques totaling Rs. 38,500,000/- and invested them in post ofÏce schemes to earn higher interest. The complainant claims that when he went to manage his funds on 08.09. 2019, he was informed that most of the money had been withdrawn through cheques from the Bank of India's Laxmi Market Branch. The branch manager, also a co-accused, allegedly told the complainant that his wife and brother-in-law had transferred the funds to the wife's bank account in Chennai, without his knowledge. Furthermore, the co-accused allegedly promised to return the amount if the complainant helped unfreeze the account in Chennai. Although the complainant did so, he never received the funds, and the applicant allegedly transferred the entire amount to various bank accounts in Chennai. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is family dispute going on between the husband/complainant and the wife/applicant. The cheque was signed by the complainant himself for investing the amount in various schemes. The entire transaction was within the knowledge and under the instructions of the complainant. There is a matrimonial dispute going on between the parties. He further submitted that the co-accused who is brother-in-law of the complainant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 1490/2024 and another co-accused who is bank employee has been granted bail by the trial Court. Further, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to 3 the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant along with another co-accused persons have committed fraud by transferring Rs. 80 lakhs from complainant’s account to various accounts, therefore, this anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicant, and from the perusal of the case diary, it appears that the applicant is the wife of the complainant, further the co-accused who is brother-in-law of the complainant has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in MCRCA No. 1490/2024 and another co-accused who is bank employee has been granted bail by the trial Court further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and it is a matrimonial dispute, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 7. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Smt. Rajkumari Mudliyar @ Meena on executing a personal bond with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be 4 prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involved herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti