Gurvinder Singh vs State and Another

V.K. Jain, J.—This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. A perusal of the status report filed by the respondent would show that the complainant was running a partnership firm alongwith Sudhanshu Gautam under the name and style of M/s. Alpine Star Marketing. The complainant was also a partner in that firm. Sudhanshu Gautam asked the complainant to purchase a Scorpio vehicle in his name and get a loan sanctioned. The complainant Rakesh Verma applied for a loan from ICICI bank. The cheque issued by ICICI bank towards loan was however deposited in the account of the firm. The case of the prosecution is that it was the petitioner Gurvinder Singh, who impersonated as Rajiv Kapoor, got a fake R.C. prepared in that name and got released the loan of Rs. 4,85,000/-. The amount of the cheque issued by ICICI bank and deposited in the account of the firm was then transferred in the name of Rajneesh, co-accused of the petitioner. The vehicle was, however, not handed over to the complainant.

A perusal of the record of the registering authority has revealed that this vehicle was then registered in the name of Indersen Yadav and was got transferred in the name of Rajiv Kapoor on 28th November, 2008. The vehicle was transferred in the name of Rajinder on 23rd December, 2008. On visiting the address of Rajinder, the Investigating Officer came to know that there was no person in that village namely Rajinder.

The co-accused of the petitioner was granted interim bail subject to his furnishing bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Since, he did not furnish bank guarantee, the anticipatory bail has not been availed by him.

A perusal of the document collected during investigation would show that the PAN card given for registration of the vehicle bears photograph of the petitioner. Similarly, the application for registration of the vehicle also bears photographs of the petitioner. The name has, however, been shown as Rajiv Kapoor on both these documents. Thus, prima facie it appears that the petitioner impersonated as Rajiv Kapoor and got the vehicle registered in an assumed name.

The complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,85,000/- by ICICI bank for purchase of the above referred vehicle. The vehicle has, however, not been delivered to the complainant and is stated to be in possession of one of the accused persons. Neither, the vehicle has been recovered so far nor the amount, which was obtained from ICICI bank has been refunded to the bank or to the complainant.

The status report also shows that the petitioner has already been declared a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 18th December, 2009 after publication of the process u/s 82 of Cr.P.C.

In Bail Applications No. 1355, 1588 and 1926 of 2009, this Court, inter alia held as under:

In my view, a person who is absconding despite rejection of his application for anticipatory bail by the court of Sessions and despite issue and publication of process against him u/s 82 of Cr.PC, is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail save in an exceptional case, justifying departure from this principle. But for existence of peculiar and special facts and circumstances of a given case, the Court would not be justified in considering the anticipatory bail application of such a person on merits. A person who is found to be absconding, ordinarily, is not entitled to grant of such a discretionary relief. He must surrender before the concerned court and seek regular bail. If anticipatory bail is granted to a person who is evading the process of law by absconding, despite rejection of his petition for grant of anticipatory bail and publication of proclamation against him u/s 82 of Cr.PC, that would encourage the criminals to go underground, evade the process of law by adopting dubious means.

In Jagtar Singh v. Satendra Kaur 2002(6) Scale, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that normally when the accused are absconding, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail or regular bail. In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Hussain 2008(1) SCC (Crl.) 176, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while examining the principles governing grant of anticipatory bail, held that one of the four factors relevant for considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail is the possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail fleeing from justice. If a person is found to be absconding despite raids conducted by the police, benefit of anticipatory bail by the Sessions court and issue and publication of process against him u/s 83 of Cr.PC, the prosecution would not be unjustified in claiming that no anticipatory bail is granted to such a person who is not likely to attend the trial and may flee from justice. Therefore, in the absence of exceptional and peculiar circumstances, the court would not be justified in granting anticipatory bail to such a person.

Since, the petitioner has already been declared a Proclaimed Offender, the proper course for him would be to surrender before concerned Court and seek regular bail instead of seeking anticipatory bail.

Bail Application No. 2510/2009 has no merit and is hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.