VMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 438 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. He was apprehending his arrest in FIR No. 33/1993 registered in P.S.Keshavpuram under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC.

(2.) Notice of this petition was given and I have heard argumentsadvanced by Mr. D.C. Mathur on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H.P.Sharma on behalf of the State. One Naresh Anand registered an FIR withthe allegations that he was running a transport office at Bombay and Delhi.While he himself supervised the office at Delhi, the office at Bombay wasbeing supervised by his father S.L. Anand. On 10.2.1993 their managerVijay Kumar contacted one broker Deepak Jain attached with Quick CargoMovers and asked him to send goods from Bombay to Delhi. Deepak Jaincame with one driver and said that he was driver of truck No. HR 26A/7162and therefore, the Manager of the firm managed, to load 196 Nugs(Packets) for Delhi in that truck. The relevant documents along with thegoods receipt were allegedly given to the driver. According to informationgiven by his manager on phone the goods should have reached Delhi around14/15-2-1993. He waited upto 17.2.1993 but the truck did not reach hisoffice. He enquired about the truck from Gurgaon Authorities and came toknow that the truck number which was mentioned by the driver was actuallyof a two wheeler scooter and, therefore, it appeared that driver had cheatedthem. He then got verified the address of the driver and came to knowthrough some one that the goods were lying in a Warehouse at LawrenceRoad. Delhi. He then made enquiries from the owner of that Warehousewho gave him the name of V.K. Malhotra of Rohini leaving deposited goodswith his transport office at Keshavpuram. Thus he mentioned that the driverand the owner of the truck had cheated him. The petitioner before me isVinod Kumar and there is no dispute that he is the same person as describedas V. K. Malhotra in the complaint.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that out of 196Nugs. 179 Nugs had already been delivered to the complainant andpetitioner was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 which may beapproximate value of the alleged 17 Nugs which are alleged to be missing.Moreover, he argued that it was not clearly mentioned in the FIR whetherthe offence complained against was under Section 406 or 420 IPC. Even ifit was so punishable under either of the aforesaid Sections of the IPC, theimprisonment being only for 3 years under the aforesaid provision, thepetitioner was entitled to be released on anticipatory bail as a matter of right.He also drew my attention to the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia andOthers v. Stale of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. I have carefully gone throughthis authority. The law on anticipatory bail has been summed up by theSupreme Court in the aforesaid case in para 31 at page 588 as follows :