1 2026:CGHC:21440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 687 of 2026 • Pragya Shrivastava D/o Shri Sunil Shrivastava Aged About 32 Years R/o M.I.G.- Ii-38 Housing Board Colony, Devrikhurd, P.S. Torwa, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus • State of C.G. Through Station House Officer Chakarbhata P.S., District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. T.K.Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.05.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.180/2026 registered at Police Station – Chakarbhata, District –Bilapsur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66(D) of IT Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.06.2024 at about 11:30 AM, a foreigner named Grace David who is the resident of U.K. had deposited a Demand Draft of Rs. 103 Crores in the name of Complainant Arvind Sinha (Advocate C.G. High Court) at Union Bank VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.05.08 18:16:04 +0530 2 of India, City Branch Airport Delhi. That in lieu of clearing the said bank draft of Rs 103 Crores, the accused Navin Kumar Joon vide different RTGS & Accounts have threatened the complainant Arvind Sinha to deposit different sum of money on different occasions otherwise his said bank draft will be dismissed/dishonored. That the complainant Arvind Sinha in fear of said bank draft of Rs. 103 Crores been dishonored, had on different occasions vide his personal, his wife & daughters bank accounts had sent a sum of Rs. 3 Crores 13 lakhs 13 thousands & 850 to the accused Navin Kumar Joon & the said amount was also received by him, still then, the said Bank Draft of Rs.103 Crores wasn't get cleared. That as per the complainant Arvind Sinha, he came to know about the main accused Navin Kumar Joon through co-accused/applicant Pragya Shrivastava, who works as an employee in HDFC Bank Bilaspur. That as per the complainant, all the amounts were received by the main accused Navin Kumar Joon on the pretext of clearance of said bank draft of Rs. 103 Crores, due to which he already had sent Rs 3 Crores 13 Lakhs 13 thousands & 850 rupees as an advance amount to clear said bank draft, but still, they are asking for more amount to clear the same. That when repeated e-mails & messages continued to come to complainant's A/c asking for money for clearance of said bank draft, the complainant had understood that he had become the victim of online fraud & therefore, had lodged the complaint dated 01.04.2026 in Chakarbhata P.S., on the basis of which the Police had registered an FIR No. 180/2026 against the main accused Navin Kumar Joon. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It 3 is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant is a lady aged about 32 years old, who is working in the HDFC Bank and her name is not mentioned in the FIR. He further submits that FIR was lodged by the complainant only against the main accused Navin Kumar Joon as he is the one who had asked for money from the complainant & had received the entire amount i.e., Rs. 3Crores 13 Lakhs 13 thousands & 850/- on the pretext of clearing said bank draft of Rs.103 Crores issued in the favour of complainant. He further submits that no proof of transaction between the main accused Navin Kumar Joon and present applicant which could establish that the applicant had received any sum of amount in the lieu of committing online fraud or assisting the main accused Navin Kumar Joon in the commission of the same. He further submits that trial may take some more time, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, levelled against the present applicant is a lady aged about 32 years and name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, during the course of investigation name of the present applicant came into light in the present case, also considering the fact that in the present case allegation levelled against one Naveen Kumar Joon and case of the present applicant is distinguished from the case of main accused, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Pragya Shrivastava, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their 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 involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali