Deepak Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7285 MP

                                    1
                                                              M.Cr.C. No.47168/2021

           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         M.Cr.C. No.47168/2021
                 (Deepak Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Jabalpur, Dated 11.11.2021
       Shri Anup Singh, counsel for the petitioner.

       Shri Pramod Saxena, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

       Shri Nilesh Shrivastava, counsel for the objector.

                                  ORDER

      Crime       Under Section                   Police Station
     346/2019   420, 406/34 of IPC       Lordganj District Jabalpur

As declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was

defaulter of Shriram Finance Company Ltd. For non-payment of EMI

of the vehicle got financed by him, therefore, it was not possible for

any other finance company to approve his application or sanction

finance in his favour and such type of default can easily be traced or

tracked by the officials of the subsequent finance company i.e., Tata

Finance Company in this case. Therefore, the case of the prosecution

is totally false and frivolous.

3. It is further submitted that on the alleged date and time of

getting the alleged truck financed, he has visited the branch of Tata

Finance Limited along with one of his friend Rajkumar Nigam, who

have taken the truck by the financial assistant of Tata Finance Ltd. He

M.Cr.C. No.47168/2021

had gone their with Rajkumar Nigam at his request to be a guarantor

in the case of finance sanctioned in his favour by Tata Finance Ltd. He

is a qualified only upto 8th standard and does not know English at all.

He signed all the documents of finance considering himself as

guarantor of Rajkumar Nigam. He has never taken delivery of the

vehicle, there is nothing against him in this case except that he has

signed the finance documents of the Tata Motors as a guarantor.

Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for any misappropriation of

truck or default in payment of EMI by Rajkumar Nigam.

4. It is further alleged that the police is not conducting the

investigation in a fair and impartial manner since last two years. Even

after requests they have not collected the CCTV footage. He has

submitted several documents which also have not been examined by

the police.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of

Bihar: (2014) 8 SCC 273 and prayed for anticipatory bail.

6. The objection of the State as well as the learned counsel for the

objector is that the petitioner fabricated false documents regarding the

finance of his vehicle from the Shriram Finance Ltd. He submitted the

documents of repayment of EMI and make the complainant believe

that he already possess a vehicle taken by the financial assistant of

Shriram Finance Ltd. and regularly paying EMI. He himself signed all

M.Cr.C. No.47168/2021

the application for sanctioning loan for a truck to be purchased by him

from the Tata Motors. Everything was explained to him at the time of

the finance. Petitioner himself submitted his pass book of bank

account, statement of bank account, PAN Card and Aadhar Card etc.

which were not required for a guarantor. The finance was sanctioned

in the name of the petitioner. Delivery report, sale certificate, copy of

insurance, margin money receipt, tax invoice etc. have been issued in

the name of the petitioner. He himself received delivery of the truck.

At the time of applying for the loan he submitted fabricated statement

of payment of EMI to the Shriram Finance Company Ltd. for the

vehicle financed by it in his favour. He received delivery from Ghana

Yard of Tata Motors Ltd. along with Shri Rajkumar Nigam and all

these documents shows that the petitioner himself got the vehicle

financed in his name and received the delivery of the same.

7. It is further submitted that the case has been registered in the

year 2019. The petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation.

Considering his constant non-appearance and non-cooperation he has

been declared absconded offender and a reward of Rs.5,000/- have

been declared for his arrest. Proceeding under Section 82 and 83 of

Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him and as per settled law a

proclaimed offender is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is

prayed, the petition be dismissed.

M.Cr.C. No.47168/2021

8. Having regard to the documents available on record, the

admitted position of signatures of the petitioner on the documents

submitted at the time of getting the vehicle financed, other contentions

of the parties, the evidence available in the case diary and other facts

and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of

bail. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

(Virender Singh) JUDGE

Loretta

Digitally signed by MRS. LORETTA RAJ Date: 2021.11.12 16:14:59 +05'30'