Monali Baghmare vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicants, Monali Baghmare and Prashant Kannodiya, are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 225 of 2025, registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that the applicants, as Director and Managers of RIL India Marketing Private Limited/WEICONIC Private Limited, along with co-accused, received Rs. 1,02,480/- from the complainant and others for appointing them as members/salesmen with promises of salary, residence, and food. The complainant alleged they were cheated after paying for products and not receiving promised benefits. The applicants claim they are innocent, falsely implicated, and that the complainant and others voluntarily joined as Independent Business Owners under a contract. They assert the company duly supplied products, and invoices with GST numbers were provided. A co-accused, Hirdesh Tomar, was granted anticipatory bail.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the applicants, Monali Baghmare and Prashant Kannodiya. The Court considered the fact that a co-accused, Hirdesh Tomar, had already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. It also took into account that the charge-sheet had been submitted, the applicants had no criminal antecedents, and they had been in jail since 22.09.2025, with the conclusion of the trial likely to take some time. The Court reasoned that these factors collectively made the applicants eligible for bail. The applicants were directed to furnish a personal bond with two local sureties each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to several conditions designed to ensure their presence during trial and prevent misuse of bail liberty, including undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, remaining present on each date fixed, and facing proceedings for misuse of bail or failure to appear as per law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Arguments for the Applicants: The applicants are innocent and falsely implicated. The complainant and others voluntarily joined as Independent Business Owners after executing agreements. The company supplied products, and invoices with GST numbers were provided. There is no contractual obligation for salary, residence, or food for Independent Business Owners. A co-accused, Hirdesh Tomar, has already been granted anticipatory bail. The applicants have been in jail since 22.09.2025, have no criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take time. Arguments for the State: The State counsel opposed the bail application, stating that the case diary was not available.