Jharkhand High Court
Mrityunjay Kumar @ Mritunjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 July, 2018
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B. A. No. 5381 of 2017
Mrityunjay Kumar @ Mritunjay Kumar ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2.M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd, ...... Opposite Parties
With
A.B. A. No. 5959 of 2017
Binod Kumar ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2.M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd through its Assistant Manager & Authorized Representative Shri G.
Uma Mahesh ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
(in A.B.A. No. 5381 of 2017)
Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate
(in A.B.A. No. 5959 of 2017)
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate
C.A.V on: 24/07/2018 Pronounced on: 27/07/2018
Since, both the anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case, hence they are taken up together and disposed of by common order.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 74 of 2017 for the offence under sections 420, 468, 471, 406, 409, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of prospection, in short, is that the instant case has been lodged on the basis of typed application of Complainant Mr. G. Uma Mahesh, alleging inter alia that he is working with Company-Bajaj Finance Company Ltd as Assistant Manager and the company is a non-banking finance company engaged in the business of granting /disbursing loan to the several customers who are desirous to purchase any goods, after submission of requisites loan documents. It is further alleged that petitioner Mritunjay Kumar (A.B.A. NO.5381 of 2017) was working with Adecco India Ltd as Sales Executive has been assigned the work of contracting the customers who d serious of loan facilities and the informant company also assigned to the dealer M/s Bharti Enterprises through whom the customers could purchase their desired items has entered into a dealer agreement with the complainant company and as per the terms and conditions the company began financing loan for the electronic goods purchased by the customers from M/s Bharti Enterprises and such loan disbursement to be made on the basis of invoices submitted by the dealer company with assurance that the produces mentioned in the invoice bill will be delivered to the customers. It is further alleged that during the period of November 2015 to June, 2016 the accused persons have deposited loan application of as many as 36 customers. On verification of loan accounts, it came to light that most customers were found to be fictitious and also invoices submitted by M/s Bharti Enterprises did not match with the product shown as sold to the customer and further instead of inverter and battery other electronic items were supplied for which the accused persons have generated fake invoices and also the Id Proof and total amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- has been shown as paid to the aforesaid dealer on fictitious invoices as such the accused persons committed breach of trust and misappropriated company's money and also cheated the company. On the basis of these and other allegations, the instant case has been lodged.
A.B.A. No. 5381 of 2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the anticipatory bail application has submitted that the petitioner is working with Adecco India Limited and he was assigned the work of contacting the customers who were desirous of loan facilities for purchasing the products from M/s Bhargti Enterprises of Chuna Bhatta, Kokar, Ranchi and it was duty of the Finance Company that after verification of the same loan amount be disbursed. The petitioner is neither the beneficiary of the loan amount nor he generated any forged documents and as such no offence is made out aaisnt the petitioner. Further, it has been submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and petitioner is a poor man.
A.B.A. No.5959 of 2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the anticipatory bail application has submitted that petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Bharti Enterprises and engaged in the business of selling consumerable goods such as TV, refrigerator, cooler, A/C battery, UPS, RO etc of various brands such as LG, HPL, Exide, Apro, Microtech, Usha, Orient, to the customers . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner entered into a Dealer Agreement dated 25.11.2015 with the Complainant Company on certain terms and conditions, more particularly, the following Clauses which is reproduced herein as follows:
"Clause 4.1: It is exprerssly agreed that BFL shall not be obliged to accept any loan application received from the Dealer and BFL may in its sole and absolute discretion and notwithstanding that the customer fulfils its eligibility criteria, be entitled to freject any loan application. BFL shall not be obliged to provide reasons for rejection of any loan application to the dealer. The daler shall not either directly or indirectly make or give any commitment on behalf of BFL relating to acceptance of the Loan Application of the Customer..............................Dealer will not be responsible for any subsequent delinquence on part of the customer towards outstanding payable to the BFL.
Clause 6.2: ON receiving the invoice and Down Payment Receipt BFL shall if satisfied that the Loan Documentation is complete in all respects, disburse to the Dealer the Loan Amount which shall be equal to the Sale Price of the Product less )a0 The down payment paid by the Customer to the Dealer B) initial payment as mentioned in Clause 4.4(e)above collected by the Dealer from customer."
Clause 9:7. The arrangement shall be on a Non Exclusive basis and BFL and Dealer shall be entitled to have or make similar arrangements with other entities on the same or other areas." It has also been submitted that petitioner adhered to all the terms and conditions more specifically the obligations casted upon the petitioner in terms of Clause-4 of the said Agreement. Further, it has been submitted that the alleged allegations are false and fabricated and alleged only to mount pressure upon the petitioner to enter into a compromise. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.
On the other hand learned A.P.P opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 also appeared and filed counter-affidavit and referring to various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that a total amount of approximately Rs. 16 lakhs was paid to the dealer on fictitious invoices and against products shown to be sold but not acknowledged by the customers.
Case diary has been produced by the learned A.P.P. Para 4, 5, 6, 7 of the case diary disclosed the complicity of this petitioner supported by the witnesses and documents.
Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Satyarthi/- (Anant Bijay Singh, J.)