Page 1 of 7

$~16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 11.01.2024

+

BAIL APPLN. 4304/2023

VIPUL JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Varun Singh, Mr.Akshay

Dev,

Mr.Ytharth

Kumar,

Mr.Abhijeet

Kr.

Panday,

Mr.Rohan Chandra, Ms.Smriti

Wadhwa & Mr.Pankaj Kumar

Madi, Advs.

versus

STATE THROUGH GOVT OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Aman Usman, APP with SI

Lal Chand & IO ASI Murli

Singh, PS Mohan Garden with

Mr.Yogesh

Sharma,

complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1.

This application has been filed under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking

anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0433/2023 registered with Police

Station:

Mohan

Garden,

Delhi

under

Sections

420/467/468/471/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short,

‘IPC').

2.

The above FIR was registered on a complaint filed by

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:12.01.2024

21:12:45

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 7

one Sh.Yogesh Sharma, who had stated that he had taken a loan

from one Kogta Financial (I) Ltd (Kogta Finance Bank)

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Finance Company’) for

purchasing a Maruti Suzuki Eeco. He admitted that the loan was

to be repaid in 24 instalments, however, he had paid only 4 of

the said instalments. He alleged that he had stopped making

payments of further instalments as proper receipt of payment

made was not being issued to him.

3.

The complainant stated that on 11.09.2023 at 11:30 AM,

three unknown persons from the Finance Company, one of

whom the prosecution alleges is the petitioner herein, came

along with a female and a male Police Officer, and started

quarreling with the complainant and snatching the keys of the

car from him. They were asked to produce the authority on the

basis of which they were demanding the possession of the car,

however, they did not have any order from any Court. A

complaint was also made to the SHO and the ACP, who advised

the complainant to record the proceedings. It was later

discovered that they had produced a fabricated and forged paper

purporting itself to be an order passed by an Arbitrator in an

arbitration proceeding authorizing them to take the possession

of the car. This document is now found to be forged and

fabricated.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

allegations of misbehavior are made only against the two Police

Officers and not against the applicant. He further submits that

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:12.01.2024

21:12:45

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 7

the complaint itself records that the persons who had visited the

complainant were not in the possession of any Court order. He

submits that the petitioner never visited the Police Station to

seek Police assistance and this can be verified from the CCTV

footage of the Police Station as of that date. He submits that,

therefore, there is no material on record to show that the alleged

forged and fabricated Arbitration Order has been produced by

the applicant or forged by him.

5.

He submits that instead of taking action against the erring

Police Officers, he is being falsely involved in the present case.

He further submits that the prosecution cannot cherry-pick the

persons against whom they wish to proceed and this itself

should be a ground for releasing the applicant on anticipatory

bail. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court

in Preeti Chandra v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC

OnLine Del 3622.

6.

He submits that even otherwise, the beneficiary of any

such document would be the Finance Company. In the absence

of the Finance Company being made an accused in the

complaint, the applicant is entitled to a grant of anticipatory

bail. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Ors,

(2008) 5 SCC 668.

7.