1 2026:CGHC:20509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 651 of 2026 Kavita Jain W/o Shri Hemant Kumar Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o- 15/2121, Mahesh Colony Srinagar Road, Gali No. -04, Near -Mahesh Bhawan, Gudiyari Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh R/o Station House Officer, Police Station - Ambikapur, District -Surguja C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01/05/2026 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 his arrest in connection with Crime No.17/2026 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.01 18:38:57 +0530 2 District Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, as per the prosecution case, the present crime has been registered on the basis of a written complaint alleging that the applicant, Kavita Jain, along with co-accused persons, induced the complainant to invest money in a purported grain trading business being run under the name and style of ‘Bhikshu Traders’. It is further stated that the said firm is a proprietorship concern of the applicant’s husband, Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain, whose name is also reflected in the GST registration, and that the entire business is operated by him. A copy of the GST registration certificate is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/3. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, being a lady, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that although allegations have been made against the applicant along with her husband, no specific or independent role is attributed to her and the entire case revolves around the alleged transactions between the complainant and her husband, Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain. It is further submitted that there is no material to indicate any 3 dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant at the inception of the transaction, which is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 420 of IPC. The case is based on documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency; therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted. It is also submitted that there is considerable delay in lodging the complaint, which suggests that a civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant, along with her husband, is actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence and that the material available on record discloses a prima facie case under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC. It is further submitted that the role of the applicant cannot be brushed aside at this stage, as the transactions were carried out in furtherance of a common intention with the co-accused persons. It is also submitted that the investigation is in progress and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy, trace the flow of money, and identify other persons involved. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail and the application deserves to be rejected. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, and the fact that the case is primarily based on documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency, coupled with the fact that the applicant is a lady having no previous criminal antecedents and that there appears to be no necessity for custodial interrogation at this stage, I am inclined to allow the present M.Cr.C.A. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Kavita Jain, 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. 5 (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 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 himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan