JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8446/2021: 1. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 169/2021, Police Station Sadar Sriganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR against the present petitioner are far from truth. He also submits that no money is due to the present petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor on the strength of case diary submits that the allegations against the present petitioner are substantiated by the evidence brought on record during the course of investigation. The petitioner is liable to pay the amount due in pursuance of the agreement entered between the parties and simultaneously, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons have filed cases against the complainants which shows that the petitioner had no intention to deal with the complainants fairly. 5. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and considering the allegations against the present petitioner and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the present bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7921/2021: 7. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 169/2021, Police Station Sadar Sriganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ladies and are wives of Kapil Mittal and Lokesh Mittal, who are the partners in the family business. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ladies and are wives of Kapil Mittal and Lokesh Mittal, who are the partners in the family business. Although, the petitioners are partners but the petitioners are not involved in the day to day affairs of the company and they are not aware about the transaction entered into by their husbands with the complainants. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application. 11. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners are ladies and their husbands are actively involved in the business, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.. 12. Accordingly, the present bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Ruchi Mittal W/o Kapil Mittal (2) Anu Gupta W/o Lokesh Mittal, in connection with F.I.R. No. 169/2021, Police Station Sadar Sriganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, the petitioners shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (I) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners 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 facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.