Chaitanya Modi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1402 of 2023

Chaitanya Modi S/o Sanjay Modi Aged About 30 Years R/o Main Road, Korba, Police Station- Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationAmbikapur Dehat (Gandhinagar), Ambikapur District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Non-applicant

¶9

MCRCA No. 1487 of 2023

¶10

Himanshu Singh S/o Rajendra Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Bauripara, Ambikapur,, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

Shailendra Singh S/o Ram Awadhesh Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Bauripara, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationAmbikapur, Dehat (Gandhinagar), Ambikapur,, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Non-Applicant

¶16

For Applicants	: Mr. Manoj Paranjape and
	Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocates
For Non-Applicant/State	: Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Add A.G.
	and Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput , Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

13.06.2024

¶21

1. Since both the bail applications arise out of same crime

¶22

2

¶23

number, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶24

2. These first anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.293/2023 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, Dehat (Gandhinagar), District : Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

3. Prosecution case in brief is that complainant was interested to purchase a "TATA YODHA 1700 BS6" vehicle from the Tata Company showroom owned by "Krishna and Co.” situated at Ambikapur, District - Sarguja. It is apposite to note that “Krishna and Co.” is the Proprietorship concern. It is further submitted that Complainant had been trying to avail loan facility for the purchase of aforesaid vehicle from various Banks and NBFC's but due to negative CIBIL score, Complainant could not avail the loan facility. Under these precarious circumstances, Complainant had created a forged and fabricated Release Letter dated 22nd October 2022 of Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Ltd wherein purportedly Complainant was approved a loan facility for Rs. 9,10,000 for the purchase of vehicle. The said letter was handed over to the Krishna & Co and delivery of the vehicle was taken on 22nd October 2022. It

¶26

3

¶27

is pertinent to note that Krishna & Co had not received any funds from the Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Ltd and the Release Letter dated 22.10.2022 was a forged letter as confirmed by the Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Ltd vide Email dated 4th November 2023. It is submitted that "Krishna & Co" so as to maintain the Dealer-Customer relationship had been persistently requesting the Complainant by sending its nominees including other coaccused's for making the payment of full amount of the vahele but no payment was done by the Complainant. It is submifted that Vehicle Dealer had also filed a complaint with the Respondent against Complainant for non Payment of vehicle price and threatening to implicate in false case of theft.

¶28

4. Thereafter, on 3^rd August 2023, Complainant and his husband had called the mechanic from Dealer's Showroom for repairing and when vehicle could not be repaired at site, it was towed away by workers of the Dealer to the Showroom. Surprisingly, Complainant had filed a complaint with Respondent in regards to aforesaid incident as theft of vehicle by the Applicant and Respondent being hand in cloves with Complainant had registered the FIR No. 293/2023 dated 10th August 2023 under Section 379 of IPC against the Applicant. It is apposite to note that Applicant No.1 is the Sales Executive and Applicant No.2 is the Senior Manager in "Krishna & Co". It is further submitted

¶29

4

¶30

that purported amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- stated in the FIR is also false which got revealed to the Krishna & Co later when a forged letter dated 3rd March 2023 on letter head of "Krishna & Co" had been handed over to the Shriram Finance Limited stating that Rs.2,99,921 had been transferred to Krishna & Co as Margin Money via RTGS. It is submitted that Axis Bank vide Letter dated 3rd November 2023 had confirmed that Rs.2,99,921 had not been credited in the account of "Krishna & Co". It is submitted that “Krishna & Co” is well within their rights to retain the possession of the vehicle in absence of nonpayment of the sale value under seller's lien under Section 47 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and no offence under Section 379 of IPC will be attracted in terms of Anup Sarmah Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors (2013) 1 SCC 400].

¶31

5. In a sale-purchase of vehicle, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the Vehicle Seller and ownership remains with the latter till the time purchaser satisfies the entire value of the vehicle as per Section 47 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. It is submitted that 1st Additional Session Judge, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja had dismissed the Bail Application No. 910/2023 of the Applicants vide order dated 8th November 2023.

¶32

6. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no

¶33

5

¶34

prima facie evidence against the applicanta requiring the custody of the applicant. He further submits that applicants are not the owner of "Krishna & Co" i.e Authorized Dealership of Tata Commercial Vehicle at Ambikapur, Sarguja. He later submits that the impugned order records that applicants had only threatened the complainant regarding payment of the vehicle and in absence of the same vehicle possession will be taken back which does not constitute offence under Section 379 of IPC. Complainant had further forged the "Krishna & Co" Letter dated 03.03.2023 to secure the loan facility from Shriram Finance Company which was also revealed at later point of time. Complainant had not made any payment to the "Krishna & Co" to an extent of Rs.2,99,921 or Rs.3,60,000 as stated in FIR which is also evident from the Letter dated 03.11.2023 of Axis Bank. He lastly submits that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶35

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicants.

¶36

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶37

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of

¶38

6

¶39

dispute and material available in case diary, without further commenting anything on merits, we find it appropriate appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶40

10. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants - Chaitanya Modi,

¶41

Himanshu Singh and Shailendra Singh , on executing a personal bond and one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶42

(a) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶43

(b) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

¶44

(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶45

(d) the Applicants and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

¶46

(f) they shall not involved himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶47

Sd/Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶48

Chandra

Chaitanya Modi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitanya Modi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sukhram

Chief Executive Officer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Diwaker Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Kumar Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh