Rooma Bhaumik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:54654

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRCA No. 1717 of 2025

¶6

1 - Rooma Bhaumik, W/o Vishwajeet Bhowmik, Aged About 53 Years, R/o R-6, Rama Vally, Raipur Road, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur C.G.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Tarbahar, District Bilaspur C.G.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Applicant	:Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate
For	:Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate
Respondent(s)/State	General

¶12

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

10/11/2025

¶15

This is the second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. filed by the applicant who is apprehending her

¶16

2

¶17

arrest in connection with Crime No.245/2019 registered at Police Station- Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC.

¶18

Earlier the first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.08.2020 passed in MCRCA No. 1876 of 2019.

¶19

As per the prosecution case, an offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicant. It is alleged that the husband of the applicant, Vishwajeet Bhowmik, in furtherance of a common intention, committed fraud by misusing the documents belonging to the complainant Arun Kumar Sahu and the witnesses and obtained loans from various banks in the names of different firms operated in his own name as well as in the name of the applicant, without the knowledge or consent of the complainant and the said witnesses.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The applicant has not committed any act constituting the alleged crime. There are no ingredients attracting the provisions of Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, made out against the applicant. The applicant has not withdrawn any amount in connection with the alleged transactions. The applicant is a housewife and an elderly woman, having no involvement in the purported financial dealings. In the present case, the co-accused

¶21

3

¶22

Rahul Kumar Sinha and Rajesh Kumar Sharma have been granted anticipatory bail vide orders dated 24.02.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.A. No. 139/2021 and M.Cr.C.A. No. 144/2021, respectively. Likewise, co-accused Ravi Shankar @ Ravi Patnayak has been granted regular bail vide order dated 24.02.2021 in M.Cr.C. No. 8459/2020, and Vishwajeet Bhowmik has also been granted regular bail vide order dated 20.09.2022 in M.Cr.C. No. 7368/2022. He next contended that the police authorities failed to conduct a proper and fair enquiry prior to registration of the FIR against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely roped in as an accused on the basis of false, frivolous, and baseless allegations, without any cogent evidence or material on record. Therefore, she may also be granted anticipatory bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations leveled against the applicant are serious in nature involving commission of fraud and cheating under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that during the course of investigation, sufficient material has been collected indicating the active involvement of the applicant in the offence alleged. The investigation is still in progress, and custodial interrogation of the applicant may be required to ascertain the extent of her involvement and recovery of relevant documents. Learned State Counsel, therefore, prays that the application for grant of

¶24

4

¶25

anticipatory bail be rejected, considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the ongoing investigation.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as other material available on record.

¶27

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence alleged, the manner in which the offence has been committed, and the material collected during the course of investigation indicating prima facie involvement of the applicant, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The contention raised by the applicant regarding false implication and her being a housewife are matters of defence, which can be considered only during trial.

¶28

It is also evident from the record that the first anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.08.2020 passed in MCRCA No. 1876 of 2019, with liberty granted to the applicant to surrender before the learned trial Court and to move a regular bail application. However, despite such liberty, the applicant failed to surrender before the trial Court, and after a lapse of approximately four years, she has again approached this Court by filing the present anticipatory bail application. Thus, looking to the conduct of the applicant, in view of the serious allegations of fraud and cheating involving financial transactions carried out in the name of the applicant, custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out.

¶29

5

¶30