TEJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these applications arise out of the same crime number, i.e. Crime No. 447/2023 registered at P.S.- D.D. Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (CG), they are being heard analogously are being decided by this common order.

(2.) These are is the first bail applications filed by the applicants under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who have apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 447/2023, registered at Police Station"D.D. Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sec. 409,420,34 of the IPC.

(3.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Rupendra Nirmalkar lodged a written complainant before Police Station against the applicants stating that applicants Chandrashekar and Tejpal Singh are involved in the business of sale and purchase of second hand vehicles in the name of Car Hub. It is alleged that about 4-5 years ago co-accused Chandrashekhar Singh met complainant by saying that he would finance the second hand vehicles at their dealership as he didn't have a dealership. It is also alleged that complainant Rupendra Nirmalkar used to transfer the amount on the same day or the other day in the Axix Bank account of accused persons through RTGS which he received by sale, purchase and re-finance of vehicles. It is alleged that in the month of March, Directors of Car Hub Chandrashekar and Tejpal Singh who have financed and refinanced the old vehicles neither foreclosed nor obtained NOC from the concerned customers or clearance from RTO, have financed total 09 vehicles amounting to Rs.71,18,000.00 from different Finance Companies, namely Cholamandalam Finance Company, A.U. small finance company and S.K. Finance and instead of depositing the said amount to finance companies, kept the same in their own accounts with an intention to cheat the company as well as customers for the purpose of earning illegal profits, breached the criminal trust and by switching off their mobile phones are absconding thus they have committed the offence. It is also the case of the prosecution that when complainant has requested them to give NOC for transfer of the name and other relevant documents they have made lame excuses and thus committed the offence.