JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner, learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned senior counsel representing the informant. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending her arrest in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.73 of 2024, for offences under Sections 467, 468, 406, 420, 504 and 34 IPC. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 3. The petitioner is the wife of the main accused. 4. There is an allegation that the husband of this petitioner, who is the main accused and this petitioner entered into an agreement to sell a flat to the informant but later on, after accepting money, the flat was sold to other person. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner has regularly appeared before the Investigating Officer and even got her statement recorded and is cooperating in the investigation. 6. Learned A.P.P. representing the State after taking instruction from the Investigating Officer, submits that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and has appeared before the Investigating Officer also and at present there is no necessity to arrest the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Mr. A.K. Kashyap, submits that the petitioner is involved in similar types of cases in sale and purchase of flats, thus this application be dismissed. 8. From the documents, I find that the petitioner is merely a housewife. She may be a name lender in the Company of her husband and for that she has been implicated in this case. This fact also cannot be lost sight of, that in a family business, the wives are always sometimes made a partner or a shareholder but the actual role is played by the husband or the male member of the family. 9. In this case, it is the husband who is the main accused. Further, from the statement of learned A.P.P. representing the State, it is clear that the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation and it is not necessary to arrest the petitioner. Thus, I am inclined to allow this Anticipatory Bail Application, as there is no ground which can authorize detention of the petitioner. Further, from the statement of learned A.P.P. representing the State, it is clear that the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation and it is not necessary to arrest the petitioner. Thus, I am inclined to allow this Anticipatory Bail Application, as there is no ground which can authorize detention of the petitioner. Her detention will be against the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another , reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51, Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another , reported in 2024 (9) SCC 198 10. With the aforesaid observation, 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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.73 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.