Delhi High Court
Gurvinder Singh vs State & Anr. on 31 December, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No. 2510/2009
% Pronounced on:31st December 2009
# GURVINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Deepak Saini, Adv.
versus
$ STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
! Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP
with Insp. Shyam Sunder and ASI
Rajender, P.S. O.I.A for R-1.
* CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes
: V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. A perusal of
the status report filed by the respondent would show that the
complainant was running a partnership firm alongwith
Sudhanshu Gautam under the name and style of M/s. Alpine Star
Marketing. The complainant was also a partner in that firm.
Sudhanshu Gautam asked the complainant to purchase a Scorpio
vehicle in his name and get a loan sanctioned. The complainant
Rakesh Verma applied for a loan from ICICI bank. The cheque
issued by ICICI bank towards loan was however deposited in the
account of the firm. The case of the prosecution is that it was
the petitioner Gurvinder Singh, who impersonated as Rajiv
Kapoor, got a fake R.C. prepared in that name and got released
the loan of Rs.4,85,000/-. The amount of the cheque issued by
ICICI bank and deposited in the account of the firm was then
transferred in the name of Rajneesh, co-accused of the
petitioner. The vehicle was, however, not handed over to the
complainant.
2. A perusal of the record of the registering authority has
revealed that this vehicle was then registered in the name of
Indersen Yadav and was got transferred in the name of Rajiv
Kapoor on 28th November, 2008. The vehicle was transferred in
the name of Rajinder on 23rd December, 2008. On visiting the
address of Rajinder, the Investigating Officer came to know that
there was no person in that village namely Rajinder.
3. The co-accused of the petitioner was granted interim bail
subject to his furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of
Rs.6,00,000/-. Since, he did not furnish bank guarantee, the
anticipatory bail has not been availed by him.
4. A perusal of the document collected during investigation
would show that the PAN card given for registration of the
vehicle bears photograph of the petitioner. Similarly, the
application for registration of the vehicle also bears photographs
of the petitioner. The name has, however, been shown as Rajiv
Kapoor on both these documents. Thus, prima facie it appears
that the petitioner impersonated as Rajiv Kapoor and got the
vehicle registered in an assumed name.
5. The complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,85,000/- by
ICICI bank for purchase of the above referred vehicle. The
vehicle has, however, not been delivered to the complainant and
is stated to be in possession of one of the accused persons.
Neither, the vehicle has been recovered so far nor the amount,
which was obtained from ICICI bank has been refunded to the
bank or to the complainant.
6. The status report also shows that the petitioner has already
been declared a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 18 th
December, 2009 after publication of the process under Section
82 of Cr.P.C.
7. In Bail Applications No. 1355, 1588 and 1926 of 2009, this
Court, inter alia held as under:-
"In my view, a person who is absconding despite
rejection of his application for anticipatory bail
by the court of Sessions and despite issue and
publication of process against him under section
82 of Cr.PC, is not entitled to grant of
anticipatory bail save in an exceptional case,
justifying departure from this principle. But for
existence of peculiar and special facts and
circumstances of a given case, the Court would
not be justified in considering the anticipatory
bail application of such a person on merits. A
person who is found to be absconding,
ordinarily, is not entitled to grant of such a
discretionary relief. He must surrender before
the concerned court and seek regular bail. If
anticipatory bail is granted to a person who is
evading the process of law by absconding,
despite rejection of his petition for grant of
anticipatory bail and publication of proclamation
against him under section 82 of Cr.PC, that
would encourage the criminals to go
underground, evade the process of law by
adopting dubious means.
In Jagtar Singh vs. Satendra Kaur 2002(6)
Scale, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that
normally when the accused are absconding,
there is no question of granting anticipatory bail
or regular bail. In State of Maharashtra vs.
Mohd. Sajid Hussain 2008(1) SCC (Crl.) 176, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the
principles governing grant of anticipatory bail,
held that one of the four factors relevant for
considering the application for grant of
anticipatory bail is the possibility of the
applicant, if granted anticipatory bail fleeing
from justice. If a person is found to be
absconding despite raids conducted by the
police, benefit of anticipatory bail by the
Sessions court and issue and publication of
process against him under section 83 of Cr.PC,
the prosecution would not be unjustified in
claiming that no anticipatory bail is granted to
such a person who is not likely to attend the
trial and may flee from justice. Therefore, in the
absence of exceptional and peculiar
circumstances, the court would not be justified
in granting anticipatory bail to such a person."
8. Since, the petitioner has already been declared a
Proclaimed Offender, the proper course for him would be to
surrender before concerned Court and seek regular bail instead
of seeking anticipatory bail.
Bail Application No. 2510/2009 has no merit and is hereby
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(V.K.JAIN)
VACATION JUDGE
DECEMBER 31, 2009
AG
