Facts
The applicants, Monika Baruah (Applicant No. 1) and her husband Kulranjan Baruah (Applicant No. 2), sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 12/2025 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Gwalior.
Source reference: p. 1The prosecution alleges that after executing a business deed concerning wood (ply) and establishing "M/s Riddhi Door Industries," the applicants cheated the complainant following a dispute in their business relationship.
Source reference: p. 1-2The applicants contended the matter was purely civil/commercial and that Applicant No. 2 had no specific role other than withdrawing amounts despite not being an authorized signatory.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under the prevailing criminal laws based on the nature of the transaction and their respective roles in the alleged offense.
Source reference: p. 2-32. Whether a subsequent business failure or management dispute can retrospectively convert a civil commercial transaction into a criminal offense of cheating.
Source reference: p. 2Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.) governing the grant of anticipatory bail.
Source reference: p. 1Sections 318(4) (cheating), 316(2) (criminal breach of trust), and 316(5) (criminal breach of trust by an agent/banker/merchant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Source reference: p. 1The principle that the presence of a notarized partnership deed and joint bank accounts indicates a bona fide transaction, and distinguished between criminal intent and civil commercial disputes.
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The court differentiated between the roles of the two applicants. For Applicant No. 2, the court observed that the sole allegation involved the withdrawal of funds via cheques without being an authorized signatory; however, since he was not a partner and lacked a primary role in the firm's management, he was deemed eligible for bail.
Source reference: p. 2-3Conversely, for Applicant No. 1 (Monika Baruah), the court found that as a direct partner in the firm, she bore primary responsibility for the disputed amounts. The court determined that the material in the case diary was sufficient to implicate her at this stage, precluding the grant of discretionary relief.
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The High Court partly allowed the application. It granted anticipatory bail to Applicant No. 2 (Kulranjan Baruah), subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and specific conditions including cooperation with the investigation and restrictions on leaving India.
The application for Applicant No. 1 (Monika Baruah) was dismissed due to her direct role as a partner in the firm.
Source reference: p. 3Original Court PDF
Moniaka BaruahvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in