Owner’s lack of direct involvement in warehouse operations warrants anticipatory bail despite allegations of misappropriation.

The applicant, Ekta Jain, is the owner and Managing Director of Sarvodaya Shree Warehouse

Following an inquiry by the M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation, it was discovered that 1,760 gunny bags of green gram (Moong) were missing from the facility

An FIR (Crime No. 158/2026) was registered under Sections 316(2), 316(3), 316(5), 318(3), 61(2), and 3(5) of the IPC (likely referring to the equivalent provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, though cited as IPC/Act in the order), the M.P. (Aw) Act, and the Prevention of Corruption Act

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, contending that she is a Jain Sadhvi who had entrusted the warehouse operations to her brother, Arpit Jain, and had no involvement in the alleged misappropriation

The State opposed the bail, citing her responsibility as MD and one previous criminal antecedent (in which she was subsequently acquitted)

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the accusations and her status

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC) governing the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

The court balanced the necessity of custodial interrogation for uncovering conspiracy against the principles of personal liberty, the socio-economic status of the applicant, the likelihood of fleeing from justice, and whether incarceration would cause undue social disrepute without aiding the investigation

The court observed that while the State alleged the applicant's responsibility as MD of the warehouse, the case diary statements from the Operator (Arpit Jain) and the warehouse guard indicated that the keys and management were exclusively handled by Arpit Jain and the Branch Manager

The court found that the applicant’s direct involvement or presence during the misappropriation was not prima facie revealed

The court noted the applicant's status as a Jain Sadhvi and agriculturalist with family roots, making her a low flight risk

It determined that custodial interrogation was not imperative for a full and fair investigation and that the trial would take considerable time to conclude

The court also dismissed the relevance of the cited criminal antecedent since the applicant had already been acquitted in that matter

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount subject to conditions including making herself available for investigation; refraining from committing similar offences; not tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; and complying with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding trial attendance