Delhi High Court
Karamvir Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 17 February, 2016
Author: S. P. Garg
$-18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 17th FEBRUARY, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 2428/2014
KARAMVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Anup Banerjee, Advocate with
Mr.Krishan Kumar & Mr.Naved,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438
Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.221/2008 registered under Sections
406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC at PS Economic Offence Wing. Status
report is on record.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Undisputedly, the petitioner obtained auto loan
financed by M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. It is alleged that the petitioner and his
associates - Jagdev Singh, Jagvinder Singh, Dharmender Pandey, Pramod
Kumar, Swaran Kumar and Azad Singh working in syndicate approached
M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. for obtaining auto loans. One of the individuals
used to stand surety for the other. After availing loans, they used to run
vehicles on different numbers which were never allotted to them by the
RTO. It is alleged that during investigation, fifteen original loan files were
collected from the complainant and it revealed that the petitioner had
availed two loans to the tune of `9.10 lacs each from M/s. Tata Finance
Ltd. for purchasing two heavy vehicles. On verification of the documents
submitted by the petitioner, it was found that he had forged the copy of
the electricity bill in both loans files bearing contract No.727519 &
727520. It was further found that the petitioner had forged copy of
insurance cover notes 692310, 692311, 692393 & 692394 purportedly
issued by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Status report reveals that both
the loans availed by the petitioner were guaranteed by accused Jagvinder
Singh who also filed forged documents i.e. copies of insurance cover,
ration card and electricity bill. It also reveals that Jagvinder Singh was a
non-existing entity and it was created by one Narender Singh @ Ramlu
who has since been arrested on 01.07.2014. Charge-sheet against him has
been filed in the Trial Court. He has been admitted to bail vide order dated
22.12.2014 by the Trial Court on payment of `5 lacs to the complainant.
Jagvinder Singh @ Narender Singh @ Ramlu also stood guarantor in
other five loans including petitioner's loan. Status report further shows
that charge-sheets against accused Jagdev Singh and Jagvinder Singh @
Narender Singh @ Ramlu have been filed. Azad Singh has been arrested
on 10.12.2014 and is in judicial custody. Proceedings under Section 82
Cr.P.C. has been initiated against other accused Dharmender Pandey and
Pramod Kumar and the present petitioner.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently urged that the two vehicles financed by the
company were repossessed by them on 05.04.2005 and he had invested
`4.50 lacs on various equipments over it. Vide order dated 10.11.2014, the
Investigating Officer was directed to verify if the vehicles financed in the
name of the petitioner were seized / repossessed by the company. The
documents filed on record by the petitioner in this regard were found
fabricated and the complainant denied to have seized any such vehicle.
4. The petitioner did not pay any installment subsequent to the
availing of the loan any time. He did not approach the company for
settlement of his account. Co-accused and his associates either have been
arrested or proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated
against them. The petitioner has not offered to pay the loan amount. It is
informed that the company has initiated execution proceedings to execute
the 'award' in its favour. Petitioner did not explain as to why he did not
participate in the arbitration proceedings.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no
sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the
application is dismissed.
6. Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits of
the case.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 17, 2016 / tr
