GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for releasing the petitioner on bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in F.I.R. No.79/07 registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra on 24.5.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 392, 506, 149 and 120-B I.P.C.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that complainant Suman Kumar Sharma on 26.4.2007 had gone to attend a marriage along with his family near Nadaun, District Hamirpur and after staying for some time he dropped his family in the function and proceeded to Jawalamukhi temple, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. At about 1.30 P.M. on that date after visiting the temple when he approached his vehicle for returning to home five persons, namely, Nipun Jain, Gurpreet Singh, John, Gian Chand and Cheeku forcibly took possession of his Innova Car bearing HP 21A-2321 by putting the complainant in fear of instant death. They snatched the keys of the vehicle and directed him to accompany them to Police Station but Nipun Jain and Gurpreet Singh instead of taking the vehicle to Police took the vehicle to a secluded place on Jawalamukhi ­ Khundian ­ Palampur road. The vehicle was stopped in a jungle and the complainant was severely beaten, his clothes were torn and was thrown out of the vehicle and he was robbed of his car, cash Rs.40,000/- jewellery, suit case containing clothes, mobile communicator, total amounting to Rs.2,17,000/-. One trouser, one shirt, two ladies suits and three sets of children suits were also lying in the vehicle. The complainant somehow managed to reach the marriage place and made provision of his family to his native village.

(3.) THE petitioner in the bail application has submitted that the loan of Rs.6,10,000/- was given to Suman Kumar Sharma borrower and Chanchal Dev Guarantor under Higher Purchase Agreement and they were liable to repay the loan of Rs.6,10,000/- in 56 equated monthly instalments of Rs.14,500/- each, commencing from 10.6.2006. It was agreed that in case of default in the payment of amount ICICI Bank Ltd. would be entitled to take over the possession of the vehicle and sell the same towards liquidation of its outstanding dues. The complainant committed the default in repayment of the loan. His cheques were bounced repeatedly on eleven different occasions. The notice dated 21.2.2007 was given to the complainant of defaults. The financed amount was recalled by ICICI Bank and complainant was called upon to repay the entire loan amount. The complainant failed to comply with the same. The complainant filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on wrong facts. The possession of the vehicle was taken over and prior intimation was also given to Police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra. The Bank and its representatives have committed no offence. As per the Bank policy, the duly appointed agency is responsible for taking over the assets on behalf of the Bank. The petitioner was not present at the time of handing over of possession to the representative of the Bank. The complainant has concocted a false story. The vehicle has been taken back by the complainant under the Supurdari and the bank has filed a revision against the same, nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner earlier filed anticipatory bail application which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala on 12.6.2007. On these grounds, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.