Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dipti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29910
1 MCRC-44910-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44910 of 2025
DIPTI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Awasthi - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Santosh Singh Thakur - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Daya Nath Pandey - Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
ORDER
This first bail application has been filed by applicant under Section
482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of anticipatory
bail in connection with Crime No. 498/2025 registered at Police Station-
Station Road, Ratlam, District- Ratlam (M.P.) for offence punishable under
Sections 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. Applicant is apprehending her arrest in
the matter.
Heard the arguments.
Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case
diary and the relevant material on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application submits that the applicant is falsely implicated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29910
2 MCRC-44910-2025
in the alleged offence for the reason that applicant - Dipti is wife of the main
accused Jai Masrani. Jai Masrani has been extended benefit of bail vide order
dated 22.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 39627/2025. The company was
registered in name of applicant, but entire business is conducted by her
husband Jai Masrani. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the applicant.
There was no intention to cheat or defraud the complainant. The complainant
has paid Rs. 26,05,086/- to the firm of applicant, which was immediately
transferred in the account of Hardik Shah, proprietor of M/S D.V. Global,
Gandhi Dham, Kucch (Gujarat) for supply of polymer granules. The D.V.
Global did not supply polymer granules to the applicant and her husband,
therefore, they could not comply with the commercial commitment with the
complainant Shiv Plastic Industries. Learned counsel referring to the
judgment of Shikhar Chemicals Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1643 , contends that the dispute between the
parties is a commercial transaction with regard to supply of goods. There was
no entrustment. The parties continued in commercial transactions. Therefore,
the alleged offence is not made out against the applicant. Learned counsel
further submits that the applicant enjoys good character and social standing.
The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed in the matter. Jail
incarceration on false accusation would cause hardship to the applicant and
her family. She is ready to cooperate in the investigation. Therefore,
applicant may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State, ably assisted by learned
counsel for the objector, opposes the application on the ground of gravity of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29910
3 MCRC-44910-2025
alleged offence. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly states
that no criminal antecedent is reported against the applicant.
According to the material available on case diary, Ashok Porwal,
Proprietor of Shiv Plastic Industries submitted a written complaint to the
SHO of P.S. Station Road, Ratlam that Jay Masrani - husband of the
applicant approached them for supply of plastic granules at the rate of Rs.
89.50/- per kilogram. Jai Masrani and other co-accused asked for advance
and promised to supply plastic granules at the earliest. Accordingly,
complainant Ashok Porwal paid total amount of Rs. 26,05,086/- in the
account of Nakshtra Polymer Firm. Jai Masrani did not supply plastic
granules as promised and did not return the advance money. The applicant
and her husband Jay Masrani have cheated and misappropriated the amount
of Rs. 26,05,086/- . On such allegations, P.S. Station Road, Ratlam
registered FIR for offence punishable u/S 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. Relevant
documents have been requisitioned. The prosecution for offence punishable
u/S 316(5) of BNS, 2023 was added. The investigation is under way.
Apparently, the transaction between the complainant and Jai Masrani -
husband of the applicant is commercial in nature relating to sale of polymer
granules. The applicant and her husband could not supply the polymer
granules and failed to repay the advance amount. The veracity of prosecution
and explanation of applicant with regard to non-supply of polymer granules
by other Company D.V. Global will be considered after evidence in the trial.
As informed, the applicant is aged around 35 years. She is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29910
4 MCRC-44910-2025
homemaker and business person by profession. Considering these aspects,
there appears to be no possibility of fleeing from justice. In absence of any
criminal antecedent, considering the socio-economic status of the applicant,
there appears to be no likelihood of tampering with the evidence, influencing
the witness or interfering in the investigation by the applicant. The
incarceration of applicant does not appear to be necessary for the purpose of
investigation. The grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant will not cause
prejudice to free, fair and full investigation. Considering her clean past, age,
status and profession, the applicant may suffer hardship and prejudice due to
incarceration entailing social disrepute and humiliation. Considering the
overall circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merits of the
accusation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Thus, the application is allowed.
Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant -
Dipti shall be released on bail in connection with Crime as mentioned in the
first paragraph of this order, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) with separate
solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer making
arrest/the Competent Court for compliance with the following conditions: :
(For the convenience of understanding by accused and surety, the conditions of
bail are reproduced in Hindi as under):-
1) Applicant shall make herself available for investigation as may be directed by the Investigation
Officer.
(1) vUos"k.kdrkZ iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vUos"k.k gsrq vkosfndk miyC/k jgsxhA
(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;
(2) vkosfndk leku izd`fr dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha djsxk ;k mlesa lfEefyr ugha gksxhA
(3) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to the police officer;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29910
5 MCRC-44910-2025
(3) vkosfndk izdzj.k ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh O;fDr dks izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls izyksHku] /kedh ;k opu ugha nsxh
ftlls ,slk O;fDr ,sls rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ;k iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks izdV djus ls fuokfjr gksA
(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure,
pressurize or threaten the witness;
(4) vkosfndk izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls lk{; ds lkFk NsMNkM djus dk ;k lk{kh ;k lkf{k;ksa dks cgykus&Qqlykus] ncko
Mkyus ;k /kedkus dk iz;kl ugha djsxhA
(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of
Cr.P.C./346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding examination of witnesses in
attendance;
(5) fopkj.k ds nkSjku] mifLFkr xokgksa ls ijh{k.k ds laca/k esa vkosnd /kkjk 309 na-iz-la- ds izko/kkuksa dk mfpr vuqikyu
lqfuf'pr djsxhA
This order shall be effective till the end of trial. However, in case of breach
of any of the preconditions of bail, the trial Court may consider on merit
cancellation of bail without any impediment from this order.
The Investigation Officer /trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced
on the personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned.
If any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained the
conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
