1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1764 of 2025 1 - Smt. Ruma Bhaumik W/o Vishwajit Bhaumik Aged About 50 Years R/o 6/13 Rama Velley Bilaspur Road, Bodri, Police Station - Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Sarkanda Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 20.11.2025 1. This is the third application filed u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.816/2019 registered at P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of IPC. 2. The first application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.02.2020 in MCRCA No.265/2020 and the second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.06.2020 in MCRCA No.437/2020. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.11.21 18:06:28 +0530 2 3. The applicant is the wife of co-accused Vishwajit Bhaumik. As per the prosecution case, Vishwajit Bhaumik induced complainant Pavitra Sikka and his wife who are the proprietor of M/s Bilaspur Casting Industries that he will provide bank loan. He obtained the property documents and signature on loan papers and used the same in collaboration of the co- accused Rahul Kumar for providing loan from the bank. It is alleged that when loan was not sanctioned, co-accused Vishwajit stopped conversation with the complainant saying that loan has not been sanctioned. The complainant came to know about the loan sanctioned amounting Rs.68,90,000/-, when he received notice for recovery. The allegation against the present applicant is that some amount of the approved loan had been deposited in her bank account. On the basis of the above background, offence has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated in this case solely because Rs.50,000 was deposited into her bank account. He further submits that co- accused Vishwajit Bhaumik and Rahul Kumar have already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, prima facie, no case is made out against the applicant and she may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the second bail application i.e. MCRCA No.437/2020 was withdrawn on 17.06.2020 with the liberty that regular bail would be filed before the trial Court, which would be decided on the same day but the applicant did not surrender before the trial court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the application including the judgment of the trial Court. 3 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the present applicant can be given the advantage of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai