Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040006652025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/149/2024 Mustab Ahmed Age: 46 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Moinuddin Ahmed Village and PO Moidumia PS and District North Lakhimpur Assam 787032 VERSUS The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the PP of AP ------------ Advocate for : Tabit Tapak Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP: Advocate appearing for respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 12.06.2025 Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. T. Noma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an application under section 482 of the BNSS 2023, praying for grant of privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant in connection with Chimpu P.S. Case No. 34/2024 under Sections 406/468/471/420 IPC. 3. The case leading to filing of the present application is that on 30.03.2024, one Tadar Niglar, State General Secretary BJP, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, has filed an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Chimpu Police Station to the effect that he availed a vehicle loan of 4(four) trucks (Dumpers) from Tata Motors Finance Limited, Lakhimpur in the year 2019 and 2021 in the name of firm M/s Darko Infra-Tech, Chimpu, Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. In the year 2021, one Mr. Mustakh Rahman of North Lakhimpur, Assam approached the complainant and proposed to buy 2(two) Trucks (Dumpers). Accordingly, the complainant agreed to sale the two dumpers bearing Registration No.AR01M2512 and AR01M2513, with certain conditions. It is alleged that the complainant came to know the various illegalities to the effect that the said Mr. Mustakh Rahman has not paid the loan due on installment amounts even after 2(two) and half years of agreement as payable to the said Tata Motors Finance Limited, North Lakhimpur, Assam. Rather, the said Mustakh Rahman has sold the said Trucks (Dumpers) to one Nibash Thakur without the consent of the complainant and have used fake and forged documents while transferring the said trucks. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the case was registered being Chimpu P.S. Case No.34/2024 registered under Page No.# 3/5 Sections 406/468/471/420 IPC. The police has issued notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C, 1973 to the accused applicant, however, the accused applicant has not responded to the said notice. 5. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant had never approached the accused applicant for sale of the said trucks but it was the Tata Motors Finance Company, Lakhimpur, who approached the accused applicant and offered for purchase of 5(five) trucks, which was taken on loan by the complainant from the Tata Motors Finance Limited. It was informed by the manager of the Tata Motors Finance Limited, that the complainant has already surrendered the trucks for sale on second hand at the rate of Rs. 13.5 Lakhs. Accordingly, the accused has purchased the 2(two) trucks from the Tata Motors Finance Ltd., for which, he has to pay Rs.27 Lakhs to the complainant as cost of the vehicle. 6. He submits that as per the agreeable terms and conditions, a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs was to be paid to the complainant and remaining Rs.17 Lakhs was to be paid to the Tata Motors Finance Limited as the vehicle belongs to the Tata Motors Finance Limited and the complainant was unable to pay the monthly installment in terms of the loan agreement. Accordingly, a Sale Deed dated 09.07.2022 was drawn, in which, a sum of Rs. 13.50 Lakh was paid to complainant. He submits that there is no forgery of the documents as such. 7. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel submits that it was the complainant, who was demanding a huge sum of money for 5(five) trucks and Page No.# 4/5 threatened to sell the said trucks, although the petitioner has no liability for 5(five) trucks, and on refusal by the accused applicant, the complainant had sold off the vehicles by taking advantage of the registered ownership of the said vehicles. He submits that the complainant has filed the case falsely against the applicant on concocted story. He also submits that if the allegation is taken on the face of the FIR, it is purely a case of civil as the allegation pertains to sale of the vehicle which is being financed from Tata Motors Finance Limited and would not be under the purview of criminal law. Therefore, he submits that the applicant may be granted a privilege of pre-arrest bail. 8. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the accused applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and has never appeared before the Investigating Officer even after the clear order of this Court for appearance. She submits that the co-accused(s), who have been granted bail in connection with the same case, are also not cooperating with the Investigating officer violating the conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, the accused applicant is not entitled to bail. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case Diary. 10. The accused applicant was granted interim bail on 23.12.2024 by this Court with a condition, inter alia, that the accused applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 31.12.2024, it is noticed that despite such order, the accused applicant had not appeared before the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, vide order dated 14.02.2025, the interim Page No.# 5/5 bail granted on 23.12.2024, was recalled. 11. The allegation of violation of an agreement of sale of trucks appears to be of Civil Nature, but allegation of forgery and using of fake documents would definitely fall under the purview of the criminal law. Although, the accused applicant has taken the medical ground on account of having various ailments, considering his conduct and medical prescription which appears to be normal one, this Court is not persuaded that the accused applicant can be admitted to bail. 12. Having considered that the accused applicant and the other co- accused(s) are not cooperating with the investigation despite direction of this Court to appear before the Investigating Officer, the accused applicant having been failed to appear on flimsy ground of medical problem, which is not convincing, I am of the considered view that the accused applicant is not entitled to be admitted to bail. 13. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant