N.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length.
(2.) The learned trial court has declined to grant- anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with F.I.R. case No. 80/2000 of P.S. Mandali. As appears from the impugned order that according to the prosecution, the truck in question was sold by the petitioner No. 1 Achar Khan for a sum of Rs. 7,60,786/- and out of this sale price, Rs. 3,50,000/- were paid in cash and balance amount was agreed to be paid in instalments. The agreement is said to have been executed on 10.6.96. Thus, the complainant was plying the truck since 1.5.96 and was paying installments to the State Bank of India, Branch Barmer. It appears that the truck was hypothecated to the said bank. It is also alleged that on 22.3.2000, the last instalment was paid and on 25.4.2000, the accused gave a receipt about having received the total price of the truck. However, the formal sale letter was not executed due to some accidental claim to be got settled. In this background, it was alleged that on 18.11.2000, the petitioners by committing the offence of robbery took away the truck.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in first place is that the alleged agreement dated 10.6.96 and the said receipt dated 25.4.2000 is a rank of forgery. In the next place, it is contended that since the truck was got financed by the bank, even if any transaction is alleged to have been made with the complainant, that is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, and thirdly, it was contended that since by virtue of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act read with Section 51, in the sequence of circumstances of present case, the petitioner-owner is deemed to have been continued in possession of the truck. As such if he took away the truck in assertion of his right under the agreement, it cannot be said to be amounting to any offence, but is only a matter of breach of agreement and a civil dispute.;