2026 (9) TMI 806

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2026 registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC at Police Station Division No.6, District Ludhiana 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant-Lovely Kalra, alleging therein that he was running the business of manufacturing of cycle and auto parts under the name and style of M/s B.S. & Sons. The petitioners, who are real brothers, had been working as brokers/mediators for trading of iron goods. By hatching conspiracy with each other, they allured the complainant to purchase H.B. wires, M.S. bar, etc. at reasonable rates from the accused Ashwani Kumar, Karan, Anurag Tiwari, Vikram Singh, and Varinder Kumar, who were proprietors of different firms. By fallin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en initiated and are underway. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners jointly moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 03.08.2026. Petitioner No. 2 has been arrested during the pendency of this petition and as such the petition qua him has been rendered infructuous. 4. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for petitioner No. 1-Sandeep Kumar that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A case bearing FIR No. 144 dated 04.07.2024 has been registered against the petitioners. The petitioner No. 1-Sandeep Kumar was arrested in the said case on 04.07.2024 and had been extended benefit of bail, whereas petitioner No. 2, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ission of subject offences stands prima facie established. It has also been revealed that an amount of Rs. 18 lakhs was withdrawn by petitioner No. 2 from the account of firm M/s Shiv Enterprises on 09.11.2023, and the said firm was, in fact, fictitious. Similarly, petitioner No. 1 had also withdrawn money from the account of another firm, M/s Raj Enterprises, which is also found to be non-existent. The allegations make out a case of preparing forged bills of non-existent firms and supplying material to the complainant on the basis of the same and thereby receiving GST amount from the complainant, but not depositing the same. The complainant was caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of act and conduct of the petitioner....