SHEETAL P SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two bail applications are taken up together as they arise out of the same FIR. The case against the petitioners is one under Sections 395/365/409/109/120B IPC. The case for the prosecution is that the driver of the complainant Mr Yashbir Singh, who claims to be a Director in the company M/s Rare Fuel and Automobile Technologies Pvt Ltd, was driving a vehicle bearing Registration No. DL 5C E 0037 which was of the make of Tata Indica on 21/8/2003. When this car driven by his driver came near Aggarwal Sweets Shop on Pankha Road near Jail Road, Delhi, some persons numbering five stopped this vehicle and took possession of the car from the driver of the complainant at gun point. It is also alleged that, at that time, an amount of Rs.20,000.00, some clothes and some files belonging to the said company were also there in the car which have yet not been recovered. A report was lodged with the police on 21/8/2003 itself by the complainant. However, no FIR was registered immediately and the same was registered on 27/11/2004 after the police had carried out preliminary investigation. It is further pointed out by the prosecution that one co- accused, namely, Shiva Kant Tiwari made a disclosure statement. In the disclosure statement he is said to have named Ram Narain, Om Kar, Pawan and Pradeep. He is further said to have stated that these four persons were moving in a jeep and they, on meeting him (Shiv Kant Tiwari), told him 'Chalo field main chalo'. Thereafter, they drove on and they came across the car in question which they stopped. According to the disclosure statement of Shiv Kant Tiwari the other four persons went near the vehicle of the complainant and it appeared that the driver handed over the keys to them. It was further stated that the driver also signed the surrender letter and that the four other persons went to the police station Dabri to lodge a report with regard to the said incident i.e surrender of the vehicle.

(2.) From the above narration, it becomes clear that the said Indica Car was apparently forcibly repossessed by the said Shiv Kant Tiwari and his four associates. It is the case of the complainant that this forced repossession at gun point was master minded by the present petitioners.

(3.) The background of the case is that, sometime in the year 2002, the said Indica Car was purchased by the said company and it was financed through HDFC Bank Limited. At that point of time, the company had two Directors, namely, Mr Piyush Singh (one of the accused) and Mr Yashbir Singh (the Complainant). The car was in the possession of Mr Yashbir Singh as a Director of the Company. There is some dispute between the petitioners and the said Yashbir Singh with regard to whether Yashbir Singh continued to be the Director of the company after 20/6/2003 when he is said to have been removed as a Director under Section 284 of the Companies Act 1956. That dispute, however, is not a matter for consideration of this court. Whether Yasbir Singh was or was not a Director is not an issue here. What happened was that apparently a letter was sent by the said Mr Piyush Singh that the company could not repay the loan taken for financing of the car and, therefore, the company was surrendering the asset. Apparently, on the basis of this letter, the bank had issued instruction for repossession of the vehicle which apparently culminated in the incident of 21/8/2003. The disclosure statement of Shiva Kant Tiwari does not even mention the name of the present petitioners. Moreover, I am informed that no recovery has been made pursuant to the disclosure statement either. Therefore, linking the present petitioners with the incident of 21/8/2003 would not be appropriate at least for the purposes of consideration of bail. There is another circumstance in favour of the petitioners and that is that the said Shiva Kant Tiwari has been released on regular bail, co-accused Ram Narain, Om Kar and Pawan who were members of the alleged group of persons who repossessed the vehicle have been granted anticipatory bail and the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Pradeep is pending. In these circumstance, considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties including those of the complainant's counsel, I feel that this is a fit case in which the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.