1 2025:CGHC:57494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9580 of 2025 1. Monali Baghmare D/o Chandrashekhar Baghhmare Aged About 26 Years (Not Mentioned In The Order Sheet), R/o Vitthal Mandir Marg Dattapur Amrawati Dhamgaon, District - Amrawati (Maharashtra) 2. Prashant Kannodiya S/o Shri Ghanshyam Aged About 24 Years (Not Mentioned In The Order Sheet), R/o Gram Gobebeli, District - Seoni (M.P.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O6cer, Police Station - New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.11.2025 1. This is the <rst bail application <led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime 225 of 2025 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the o?ences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 10:19:57 +0530 2 New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, have registered a crime against the present applicant along with two other accused persons. The name of the complainant is Virendra Baghel, who lodged a written report against the present applicant and the co-accused persons. The names of the other accused persons are Monali Baghmare and Prashant Kumar Sanodiya. As per the FIR, the incident occurred on 17.06.2025, and the FIR has been registered on 20.09.2025 upon the written report lodged by the complainant. It is alleged that the Director (present applicant) and the Managers (co-accused Monali Baghmare and Prashant Kumar Sanodiya) of RIL (Resolve Improve Life) India Marketing Private Limited / WEICONIC Private Limited received an amount of Rs. 1,02,480/- from the complainant and his colleagues, Rs. 44,880/- from the complainant, Rs. 49,300/- from Ajay Kumar Dhruv, and Rs. 8,300/- from Akash Kumar Lohar, for appointing them as members/salesmen/agents of the said company with the assurance of providing a monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/-, along with residence and food facilities. However, nothing was provided to them, and they were allegedly cheated by the accused persons. In the written report, the complainant stated that he had seen an advertisement on his mobile WhatsApp regarding a vacancy for o6ce work in the said company. Thereafter, he visited the o6ce of the company on 17.06.2025 and met the Managers, i.e., co-accused Monali Baghmare and Prashant Kumar Sanodiya. The co-accused persons disclosed the name of the present applicant as the Director and explained the nature of work. They told the complainant that he must purchase and sell the company’s products, such as daily-use clothing and beautician items, as a salesman/agent. They assured him that he would receive 10% commission on sales, a <xed salary of Rs. 22,000/- per month, and facilities of residence and 3 food. Thereafter, the complainant purchased a packet of the company’s products and paid Rs. 44,880/- through an online transaction made on the mobile phone of one of the company’s employees, namely Shiva Rana. The complainant’s colleagues, Ajay Kumar Dhruv and Akash Kumar Lohar, also paid money to the company. However, when no bene<ts or facilities were provided, they enquired about the company’s registration details and GST number. Upon receiving vague and unsatisfactory replies from the co-accused persons, they suspected that they had been cheated. Consequently, the complainant lodged the written report. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the complainant lodged a report on 18.09.2025 before the concerned Police Station, where the police advised him to seek remedy from the Court for his grievance and informed him about the proceedings recorded under Section 155 Cr.P.C. (Section 174 BNSS). He further submits that the complainant, Ajay Kumar Dhruv, and Akash Kumar Lohar voluntarily joined the company as Independent Business Owners after executing the Direct Seller Contract/Agreement on stamp paper, fully understanding all terms and conditions. They signed the agreement of their own free will. The applicants are employees of RIL (Resolve Improve Life) India Marketing Private Limited, and the company duly supplied its products, such as daily-use clothing and other articles, to the complainant against the amount deposited by him. The complainant was entitled to a 10% commission on the sale of products. The company also provided an exchange facility to all Independent Business Owners. He also submits that there is no term or condition in the agreement requiring the company to provide salary, residence, or 4 food facilities to Independent Business Owners. The RIL (Resolve Improve Life) India Marketing Private Limited is a duly registered company under the Companies Act. The complainant and Ajay Kumar Dhruv purchased products from the company and made payments for which duly issued invoices, mentioning the GST number, were provided to them. The company issued Identity Cards to the complainant and others through its Weiconic App. He also submits that the co-accused, namely Hirdesh Tomar, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1832 of 2025 vide order dated 20.11.2025, and that the present applicants have been languishing in jail since 22.09.2025. The applicants have no criminal antecedents, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the case diary is not available in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the the fact that the co-accused, Hirdesh Tomar, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1832 of 2025 vide order dated 20.11.2025, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, and that they have been in jail since 22.09.2025 while the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicants – Monali Baghmare and Prashant Kannodiya, 5 involved in Crime 225 of 2025 registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.), for the o?ences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall <le an undertaking to the e?ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates <xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date <xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without su6cient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date <xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates <xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial 6 court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without su6cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. O6ce is directed to send a certi<ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek