Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 17 July 2026 (Order Reserved on 10 July 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicants – Amit Prabhakar Salunke (aged ~35, residing Pune) and Ajit Jaysinghrao Darandale (aged ~55, residing Pune); Respondent – State of Chhattisgarh through its Station House Officer, Police Station E.O.W./A.C.B., District Raipur.
  • FIR Details: Crime No.44/2024 registered at Economic Offences Wing/Anti‑Corruption Bureau, Raipur, under Section 120‑B IPC, Sections 7(b) & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; later, Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC were added. FIR No.0044/2024 dated 05‑10‑2024.
  • Arrest: Both applicants were arrested on 04‑05‑2026 and remained in judicial custody pending trial.
  • Prosecution Case: Alleged organized conspiracy within Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL) to extract illegal commissions from manpower supply agencies. Applicants, as Directors of Sumeet Facilities Private Limited (a manpower agency), were accused of inflating bills (overtime, bonus, extra days) and diverting the released funds as illegal commissions. Investigation involved Enforcement Directorate (PMLA), bank records, call data, digital communications, and alleged coordination with public servants.
  • Defence Submissions (Learned Senior Counsel for Applicants): Argued lack of direct incriminating material; applicants not named in FIR; they cooperated fully with investigators; operational control was vested in Siddharth Singhania via Consultancy Agreement (01‑10‑2018) and Operational Management Agreement (01‑12‑2020); no evidence of personal demand, receipt, or handling of illegal money; no forged documents linked to them; parity with co‑accused (Ajay Lohia, Amit Mittal) who had already been granted bail; reliance on Supreme Court precedents (Harmeet Singh Paintal, Sunil Bharti Mittal, etc.) that directors are not automatically liable.
  • State Counsel Submissions: Emphasised seriousness of economic offence, alleged active involvement of applicants, existence of prima facie material (bank records, electronic evidence), risk of tampering or influencing witnesses, and that parity cannot be claimed as a right.
  • Court’s Observations: Noted that applicants were not mentioned in FIR; they cooperated throughout investigation; charge‑sheet already filed; evidence is predominantly documentary and already seized; no recovery pending from them; operational management appears to have been entrusted to Siddharth Singhania; no specific material directly linking applicants to illegal acts; principles of bail (Article 21, Section 483 BNSS) require only prima facie case and necessity of detention; cited numerous Supreme Court judgments (Joginder Kumar, Siddharth, Vihaan Kumar, Mihir Rajesh Shah, Sanjay Chandra, Satender Kumar Antil, Dataram Singh, P. Chidambaram, Arvind Dham) supporting bail where investigation is complete and evidence is documentary.
  • Parity Consideration: Co‑accused Ajay Lohia (MCRC No.5063/2026) and Amit Mittal (MCRC No.4981/2026) had been granted regular bail on 03‑07‑2026; Court found no distinguishing factor to deny bail to the present applicants.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed the bail application.
  • Both applicants are released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 10,00,000 each with two solvent sureties of equal amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. No inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts.

2. Surrender passports (if any) and not leave India without Court permission.

3. Appear before the Trial Court on every date fixed.

4. Not engage in any act that may delay or prejudice the trial.

5. Continue cooperating with the investigating agency.

6. Provide a telephone/mobile number for contact by officials.

7. Violation may lead to cancellation of bail.

  • The observations are limited to bail considerations and do not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case.

Topics: Bail, Economic Offence, Criminal Procedure