1 CGHC010206862026 2026:CGHC:32405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 817 of 2026 Pratima Yadav D/o Pritam Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Daniya, P.S. Gunderdehi, District- Balod (C.G.) (Village Is Wrongly Mentioned As Ville In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Dallirajhara District- Balod (C.G.) (Police Station Though Mentioned As Rajhara In The Fir But The Fir Is Lodged At Dallirajhara Police Station) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kabiir Kalwani, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shalin Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 98/2026 registered at Police Station- Dallirajhara, District- Balod, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that the complainant company is engaged in providing loans to low-income individuals. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 The co-accused, namely Lokesh Kumar and Ajay Dewangan, who were employed as Salesmen with the complainant company, were entrusted with the responsibility of verifying the authenticity of the documents submitted by loan applicants before the disbursement of loans. During the year 2024, the company sanctioned and disbursed loans to several individuals, including the present applicant, who was granted a loan of Rs.50,000/- on 05.03.2024. Subsequently, a number of borrowers defaulted in repayment of the loan installments. Upon conducting an internal inquiry, the company allegedly discovered that certain borrowers had obtained loans on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. On the basis of these allegations, the present crime came to be registered, and the applicant has filed the present application seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is contended that the allegations levelled against the applicant are wholly false, baseless and fabricated. He further submits that the primary allegations in the FIR are directed against the employees of the complainant company, namely the co-accused persons who were responsible for verification of the documents submitted by the loan applicants, and there is no specific role or overt act attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant had obtained a loan from the complainant company on 05.05.2024 and has duly repaid the entire loan amount along with all the installments, whereafter the complainant company issued a No 3 Objection Certificate in her favour. Annexure A/3 is the copy of the No Objection Certificate issued by the complainant company bearing the signature of its authorised signatory. He also submits that the applicant is a housewife and had complied with all the formalities and requirements prescribed by the complainant company at the time of availing the loan. It is further argued that no specific allegation has been made against the applicant in the FIR and that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out from the facts and circumstances of the case. The applicant has been unnecessarily roped into the present case on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations and, being a lady with no criminal antecedents, the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence relating to the procurement of loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, causing financial loss to the complainant company. It is contended that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the role of the applicant is yet to be fully ascertained. It is also pointed out that the anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused person has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that though the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused has been rejected, but the applicant is a lady, and she had obtained the loan in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the complainant company and has already repaid the entire loan amount along with all installments, and further taking into consideration the No Objection Certificate issued by the complainant company in favour of the applicant, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A/3. Therefore, at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Pratima Yadav on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, she 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 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 5 disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her adhaar card along with a coloured 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 herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan