JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Jaikaran, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned AGA-I for the State, Sri Ram Charitra Pandey and Ms. Jyoti Rajpoot, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 37 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 01.03.2023 against the applicant's husband Jitendra Kumar, alleging that the informant is cousin of the applicant; the applicant’s husband-named accused Jitendra Kumar had offered the informant to get persons employed in government service on payment of money and the applicant paid Rs. 3 lakh to the informant and he made five other persons pay money to the named accused for getting employment. It is alleged that a total of Rs. 30 lakh were paid but the persons could not get employment. The FIR states that two cheques for Rs. 9 lakh each were given by the named accused for repaying the amount but the cheques were returned by the bank unpaid. During investigation the informant implicated the applicant also stating that the amount was received by her. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in Case Crime No. 136 of 2022 of similar nature has been disclosed in para 17 of the affidavit, in which she has already been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow. 5. The applicant's involvement in Case Crime No. 136 of 2022 of similar nature has been disclosed in para 17 of the affidavit, in which she has already been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow. 5. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that from the allegations levelled in the FIR itself it appears that it was the informant himself who tried to secure government employment through illegal means and he acted as an agent for getting several other persons employed illegally; that the informant had lodged the FIR after cheques handed over towards refund of money were dishonored and that the applicant is a woman and there is no allegation that she had made promise to get persons employed illegally, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Shiv Kumari before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid complaint case, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; (ii). That 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 facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii). That the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.