Chhattisgarh High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Bail Warranted on Parity Where the Accused’s Alleged Role Was Merely That of a Peon.

TANISHA BAGHEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: October 05, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Bail Warranted on Parity Where the Accused’s Alleged Role Was Merely That of a Peon.. TANISHA BAGHEL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 585/2024, registered for alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005.

Source reference: para. 1

The prosecution alleged that the applicant worked as a peon at a company office involved in inducing women to deposit ₹30,000 each on promises of financial assistance, loans and monthly payments; the collected funds were allegedly misappropriated.

Source reference: para. 2

The applicant contended that she had no role in the transactions or collection of money and relied on parity with nine co-accused who had been granted bail.

Source reference: para. 3

She had been in custody since 4 August 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

Source reference: para. 3

The State opposed bail but did not dispute that co-accused had been released.

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail having regard to her alleged role, the bail granted to co-accused, her period of custody and the likely duration of the trial.

Source reference: paras. 3–6
03

Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

Source reference: para. 1

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, parity with co-accused, the period of custody and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

Source reference: para. 6
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the applicant’s alleged role to be limited to working as a peon, alongside the fact that several co-accused in the same crime had already been granted bail.

Source reference: para. 6

It also took into account the applicant’s custody since 4 August 2026 and the prospect of a lengthy trial.

Source reference: para. 6

On those circumstances, and without expressing any view on the merits, the Court found that the applicant deserved regular bail.

Source reference: para. 6
05

Holding

The bail application was allowed.

The Court directed that the applicant be released on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Source reference: para. 7

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial and requiring appearance on every date fixed by the trial Court until disposal.

Source reference: para. 7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232

Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

TANISHA BAGHELvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · October 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment