Munni Ram vs State Of Punjab & Another

Alka Sarin, J

Heard through video conferencing.

This is the first petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.191 dated 11.08.2020 under

Sections 419, 420, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station City Abohar, District Fazilka.

Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 against three accused â€"Sunil Bishnoi, Munni

Ram (petitioner) and Dalip Kumar â€" alleging that they had cheated her of almost Rs. 17 lakhs after hatching a criminal conspiracy. The

complainant-respondent No.2 alleged that on 16.02.2016 Dalip Kumar got a deal brokered regarding sale of a Tata Truck bearing registration number

RJ- 07-GB-0529 model 2011 by Sunil Bishnoi to her for Rs. 14,45,000/- and on this vehicle Rs. 10,70,000/- was due towards the Hinduja Leyland

Finance Company. She paid Rs. 3,75,000/- in cash to Sunil Bishnoi in front of Dalip Kumar and     her      father Â

Vinod           Kumar at        their    home. There  were    46 instalments of Rs. 33,600/-

per month remaining on this vehicle which she started paying from 16.03.2016 after believing Dalip Kumar and Sunil Bishnoi. Sunil Bishnoi did not

give anything in writing to her. The complainant-respondent No.2 brought to the notice of Dalip Kumar several times that she had paid whatever

amount was due to Sunil Bishnoi and was regularly depositing the loan instalments but Sunil Bishnoi was not giving anything in writing to her. After

several attempts, they gave her in writing on 17.03.2017 after almost 13 months. As per the complaint, Sunil Bishnoi started harbouring thoughts of

cheating and he used to say that the complainant-respondent No.2 will have to return the vehicle but she told him that you have already sold the

vehicle to me and I will not return it. The complainant-respondent No.2 further averred that Sunil Bishnoi is a political person and has his transport

company in Gujarat by the name of Vishnu Onlines and has control over the truck transport. He called his uncle (chacha) Mani Ram Bishnoi,

Manager and got the vehicle possessed which she got released after giving someone’s surety. The complainant-respondent No.2 was ready to

organize and deposit the balance instalments but they were not ready to let her vehicle ply on the road and at every place Sunil Bishnoi wanted to take

the vehicle. Despite this, in March, with great difficulty she deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- out of the balance instalments.The complainant-respondent No.2

requested Mani Ram Bishnoi, the uncle (chacha) of Sunil Bishnoi, to let her vehicle ply and that she will soon clear all the instalments. But without her

consent, Mani Ram Bishnoi gave a loan of Rs. 1,00,800/- against this vehicle to Sunil Bishnoi. The complainant- respondent No.2 deposited Rs.

60,000/- in the account number told by Mani Ram Bishnoi, Manager but despite that Sunil Bishnoi with his uncle (chacha) Mani Ram Bishnoi did not

let her vehicle run on the road. Later the complainant-respondent No.2 learnt that Sunil Bishnoi could not sell the vehicle without clearing the loan

though she bought the vehicle on the assurances of Dalip Kumar and Sunil Bishnoi. Sunil Bishnoi and his uncle (chacha) Mani Ram Bishnoi, Manager

have made a conspiracy to get cheques from different persons and getting them deliberately bounced but the complainant-respondent No.2 did not

know about the cheques. They have taken Rs. 3,75,000/- in cash from the complainant-respondent No.2, on 13.01.2017 Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-,

on 16.02.2017 Rs. 19,000/- deposited in account No.671101500431 of Sunil Bishnoi and Sunil Bishnoi took Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash from her house

towards 3 instalments, and she deposited 28        instalments           of        `33,600/- per month.

Till today the complainant- respondent No.2 has paid Rs. 14,64,800/- to Sunil Bishnoi and they have cheated her and she is in depression. Despite

making the deal for the complete price they are not letting her vehicle to run and she was incurring losses every day as the vehicle is standing.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case at the behest of the complainant-respondent No.2

who has political clout. He stated that the petitioner had no role to play in the alleged deal between the complaint-respondent No.2 and Sunil Bishnoi.

He further submitted that the Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited has lodged an FIR dated 17.08.2020 in Bikaner (Rajasthan) against Sunil Bishnoi, Ram

Dayal and the complainant-respondent No.2.

Notice of motion was issued on 18.12.2020. The State has filed a status report dated 31.12.2020 by way of affidavit of Rahul Bhardwaj, PPS, DSP,

Sub-Division Abohar, District Fazilka.

As per the status report filed by the State, the accused petitioner is the uncle (chacha) of accused Sunil Bishnoi and is an employee of the Hinduja

Leyland Finance Limited and was posted as it’s Manager at the branch at Nokha, Rajasthan at the relevant time. The accused Sunil Bishnoi

availed of a loan of Rs. 10.70 lakhs from the Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, Branch Nokha, of which the petitioner was the Manager, for purchase

of a Tata truck and executed a loan agreement dated 11.02.2016. The loan amount, alongwith interest, was payable in 46 instalments of Rs. 33,600/-

each. During the subsistence of the loan, Sunil Bishnoi sold the truck to the complainant-respondent No.2 for Rs. 14.45 lakhs on 16.02.2016 and the

agreement to this effect was executed on 17.03.2017 as per which the entire loan amount was to be paid by the complainant-respondent No.2. The

deal was made through accused Dalip Kumar. The status report gives details of Rs. 16,84,400/- (in cash and by cheques) paid by the complainant-

respondent No.2 to the accused towards the loan account of the truck. It has been averred that the petitioner being the accounting party and Manager,

by misusing his powers, manipulated the loan account and did not deposit the amount in the loan account but refinanced the amount to accused Sunil

Bishnoi knowing that Sunil Bishnoi had already sold the truck to the complainant-respondent No.2. It is further averred that the petitioner, Manager of

Finance Company, is not allowing the complainant-respondent No.2 to run the truck. The status report states that the accused have cheated

the complainant-respondent No.2 and that the petitioner and co-accused are absconding and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required

to investigate the case properly and effectively and to recover the amount of the complainant-respondent No.2.

I have heard counsel for the parties.

The facts as emerging from the FIR and the status report disclose commission of an economic offence by the accused including the petitioner. The

accused are absconding and without their custodial interrogation the complete picture may not come forth. The petitioner is named in the FIR and was

Manager of the institution which extended the loan to accused Sunil Bishnoi for the vehicle which he subsequently sold to the complainant-respondent

No.2. The legality of the sale is not being delved into in this petition but the fact remains that the complainant-respondent

No.2 has parted with Rs. 16,84,400/-. The appropriation of this huge amount also has to be determined.

In view of the above, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.