JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, apprehending her arrest, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection to Complaint Case No.50 of 2015. 2. The complainant has alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 323, 341, 504, 506 r/w section 34 I.P.C. and under section 138 N.I. Act. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar No.2, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for O.P.No.2 submits that there are two other cases of similar nature registered against the petitioner and while so, keeping in mind section 438(1)(i) Cr.PC the application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for O.P.No.2 has referred to a decision in " Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. , (2011) 1 SCC 694 ". 5. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that the first paragraph of the complaint petition discloses the reason why the petitioner was given Rs. 4 Lacs (Rs.Four Lacs) by the complainant. It is the complainant''s own case that for treatment of her husband the petitioner has taken friendly loan (Dostana karz) of Rs. 4 Lacs from him. The criminality on non-refund of the aforesaid Rs. 4 Lacs to the complainant is sought to be imputed by asserting that on repeated demands the petitioner has refused to return the aforesaid amount. Further case pleaded by the complainant is that the cheques given by the petitioner have been dishonoured. 6. Not only the offence under the N.I. Act is compoundable, it is bailable also. In so far as commission of other offences by the petitioner is concerned, prima facie, in particular after reading paragraph no.1 of the complaint petition, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, notwithstanding registration of two other criminal cases in which she has been granted bail, deserves anticipatory bail in this case. 7. The petitioner was granted provisional bail by order dated 20.04.2018. This order is now confirmed. 8. The anticipatory bail application stands allowed.