1 2025:CGHC:6543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 196 of 2025 Taran Singh Arora S/o Shri Ajit Singh Araisingh Arora Aged About 36 Years Occ- Business Currently R/at.- Room No. 104 Aviar Kabra Galexy Star 2, Bhramand, Kasarvadvali, Thane-W, District- Thane (Maharastra) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Roopesh Ramesh Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy, Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 0539/2024 registered at Police Station – Mandir Hasaud, District - Raipur, (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that the Deepak Talwar, the complainant, filed a written complaint at Mandir Hasaud police station, Raipur, stating that he is the proprietor of RTS Home Aids KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 INC Proprietorship Firm. The accused offered to buy his Jeep Compass SUV, and after negotiations at his restaurant in June 2023, they finalized the deal for Rs.37,00,000/-. The accused asked him to deliver the vehicle to their Mumbai office and paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- through NEFT. Deepak had informed them that the vehicle was purchased on loan, with an outstanding balance of Rs.44,00,000/-. The accused promised to pay the balance amount upon delivery of the vehicle to clear the loan. However, after Deepak delivered the vehicle, the accused only paid Rs.11,25,000/- and failed to pay the remaining Rs.25,75,000/-, thereafter, the offence has been registered against the applicant and co-accused for cheating and dishonestly inducing the complainant to sell his vehicle, thereby gaining wrongful benefit. The case, registered as Crime No. 539/2024 under Section 420 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that in the month of June 2023, the complainant was not in a position to pay HDFC BANK'S monthly installments over the said vehicle from past three months, therefore the HDFC bank was about to seize the vehicle from the hands of the complainant. The complainant then approached his person named Mr. Rohan Jugare for selling and disposing off the said vehicle and for that purpose transferred the Mumbai. The said vehicle was at accidental vehicle and already complainant had availed Insurance amount of Rs.19 3 lakhs and more upon the said vehicle. Mr. Rohan Gujre who is representative of the complainant tried his best to sell and disposed off the said vehicle but could not succeed being accidental vehicle. Further, there was loan of Rs.44 lakhs pending upon the said vehicle from HDFC bank. Therefore, the said complainant and Mr. Rohan Gujre approached the present application whereby the sale consideration for the said vehicle was fixed at Rs 37,21,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Twenty One Thousand) and balance amount of loan amount i.e more than Rs.7 lakhs were to be paid by the complainant. The complainant agreed to the deal. The complainant said in order to show the said vehicle to prospective buyer, the said vehicle will be required, so from the custody of Mr. Rohan Gujar the said vehicle was handed over to the present applicant for sale. It was further agreed that till the time, the said vehicle does not gets sold, the applicant can pay monthly installments over the said vehicle and he can keep the said vehicle in his showroom for showing it to prospective buyers for the said vehicle. He further submits that the applicant was made to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and then balance few installments were made to be paid by the Applicant and vehicle was handed over to the Applicant for his use. The applicant says that applicant paid altogether an amount of Rs. 13,00,000/-(Rupees Thirteen altogether which is an admitted amount.). He further submits that the complainant very smartly represented that he is in deep financial difÏculties therefore he cannot bear the installment amount and agreed to hand over the vehicle for use of applicant and made him 4 pay installment amount for the vehicle which is owned by the complainant. Also pleaded that applicant shall sell and disposed off the said vehicle to any prospective buyer hereinafter. The applicant submits that, the complainant had given the said car through his agent named Rohan Gujare at Mumbai and he was unable to sold out in market and he know that, the applicant have good reputation in the market and therefore Rohan Gujre was bring the said car in their showroom. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Mr. Rohan Gujre was the middle person who dealt with applicant on behalf of complainant in the Mumbai. The said car bears a car loan of Rs. 44,00,000/- from the bank but the said car will not go as per requisition price of complainant and therefore the applicant have given an offer of Rs. 37,21,000/- to sell out the said car through him and this offer price accepted by complainant and his representative. The applicant submits that, the complainant were agreed to foreclose the difference of loan amount apart from its consideration price to his bank. The applicant therefore given a token amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Ra. One Lakh only) to complainant against the sale of the said car and given assurance that, he will sell the said car to third party on immediate manner. He also submits that at the time of parking of the said vehicle in the showroom of the applicant was asked the every documents and details in respect of the said car but the complainant and his representative were suppressed the fact that the insurance claim in a tune of Rs. 19,32,458/- have already claimed on the said car and which got a huge defect in it 5 and due to said defect the applicant was unable to find the good buyer as per the requisition made by him to the complainant and the applicant also informed the said defect about the said car to Rohan Gujre who talks with complainant and the complainant requested to the applicant to keep the said car in his showroom till further prospective buyer to buy it. The complainant were also requested to the applicant to pay a regular payment of the loan installment in respect of the said car on every month and he was also agreed that, the amount of every loan installment of the said car which have been paid by the applicant through the firm will be deducted from its purchase price as agreed by and between them (i.e. Rs.37,21,000/-). 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedent and in the present case, the co-accused person, namely, Nupur Vijay Patil has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1367/2024 vide order dated 12.12.2024. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant alongwith co-accused person have cheated the complainant by buying his vehicle on loan, with an outstanding balance of Rs.44,00,000/-, upon which they paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as advance and promised to pay the balance amount upon delivery of the vehicle to clear the loan, however, after delivered the vehicle, the accused only paid Rs. 11,25,000/- and failed to pay the remaining 6 amount of Rs. 25,75,000/- thereby cheated the complainant, as such, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and further the fact that the co-accused person, namely, Nupur Vijay Patil has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1367/2024 vide order dated 12.12.2024, and the present applicant being a husband of co-accused who has been granted anticipatory bail and he is a car dealer thus, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Taran Singh Arora, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each 7 and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his 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. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal