JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 406/420/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner and her deceased husband gain confidence of the informant by entering into a business transaction. Initially material coal was taken from the informant and money was being paid regularly. Thereafter the intention of the petitioner and her husband turned bad as a result of which the amount remained pending. As per the informant as of date the due is of Rs. 1,98,52,013/-. It has also been mentioned that after the death of the husband of this petitioner, the petitioner issued a cheque which is in the name of her husband this shows the malafide and fraudulent intention of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the lifetime of the husband the informant did not take any steps and only after the death he is coercing this petitioner who is a widow lady. He further submits that there was serious dispute and on coercion and threat some amount was extorted by the informant. This is his contention that the entire amount which is due arises out of business transaction and admittedly huge amount has been paid regularly by the husband of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that knowing her husband is dead the petitioner has issued cheque to the informant. He further submits that the earlier transaction was nothing but to gain confidence of the informant and to cheat the informant at later stage. The outstanding amount is Rs. 1,98,52,013/-. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that though the petitioner has sent a reply to the notice under section 41A Cr.PC but has not appeared. 7. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and supports the informant and submits that twice the notice was sent under section 41A Cr.PC to the petitioner. The petitioner has appeared in the first notice but not appeared in the second notice. 8. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that there was a business transaction going on between the informant and husband of the petitioner and this petitioner also. The petitioner has appeared in the first notice but not appeared in the second notice. 8. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that there was a business transaction going on between the informant and husband of the petitioner and this petitioner also. It has also been admitted that the price of material which was being supplied by the informant to the petitioner’s husband, was being paid regularly earlier. On query it has been submitted that an amount of Rs. 84 lacs and odd has already been paid but the due is now Rs. 1,98,52,013/- . 9. Considering the nature of the allegation prima-facie, I find that this case arises out of commercial business transaction which is long standing, further the petitioner is a lady, thus, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of her surrender or arrest, she shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Argora P.S. Case No.114 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property.