Anticipatory bail granted to unnamed woman with no criminal antecedents where co-accused already secured bail.

The Applicant, Madhu Mahant, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 150/2026 registered at Police Station Banki Mongra, District Korba, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The prosecution alleged that, after the victim had lodged an FIR against Sahil Kumar Mahant, co-accused Ravindra Mohan Baghel obtained ₹1,50,000 from the complainant on the promise of helping Sahil secure relief in that case. Of this amount, ₹30,000 was allegedly returned, while ₹1,20,000 remained unpaid. The case diary reflected a bank deposit of ₹50,000 in the Applicant’s account

The Applicant contended that she was falsely implicated, was not named in the FIR, had no criminal antecedents, and that no direct or cogent evidence connected her with the alleged offence. It was also submitted that co-accused Ravindra Mohan Baghel had already been granted bail

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the Applicant had no previous criminal antecedents

Whether the Applicant was entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Whether the Applicant’s status as a woman, her absence from the FIR, lack of criminal antecedents, the grant of bail to a co-accused, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified the grant of anticipatory bail

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence

The alleged substantive offences were Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning cheating involving dishonest inducement to deliver property and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

In determining whether anticipatory bail should be granted, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the Applicant’s individual circumstances, the existence or absence of criminal antecedents, parity with a co-accused, and the probable duration of the trial

The Court noted that the Applicant was not named in the FIR and that the case diary primarily disclosed the alleged receipt of ₹50,000 in her bank account, while the principal allegation concerning the demand and retention of money was directed against co-accused Ravindra Mohan Baghel

The Applicant was a 29-year-old woman with no criminal antecedents, and the co-accused had already been granted bail

Weighing these circumstances against the nature of the allegations and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court found that custodial arrest was not necessary at that stage and that the Applicant had made out a fit case for anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits

The Court directed that, in the event of her arrest, Madhu Mahant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer

The relief was made subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; appearance before the trial court on every date; submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents; and non-involvement in any similar offence in the future