Sant Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 296 28.08.2024 Civil Line Jind, Dis(. Jind 406, 409, 420, 506, 120-B IPC

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 482 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 19 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: "2. That the brief facts of the case are that the present case bearing FIR No.296 dated 28.08.2024 u/s 406, 420, 506 IPC was registered at Police Sta'on Civil Lines, Jind was registered on the complaint of Smt. Meena Goyal, wife of Sant Kumar, resident of Dhuri, District Sangrur (Punjab). A complaint No.4934-P dated 23.08.2024 was received from S.P. Office, Jind through post in the Police Sta'on against Saloni Goyal, employee of HDFC order/judgment. 1 Bank, Jind and Mohit Goyal etc. for playing fraud and duping them for crores of rupees. It is alleged in the complaint that he and his wife are maintaining account No. 50200062xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh, Account No. 50200062xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh, Account No. 50200062xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh, Account No. 5020007xxxxx Primary Account Holder Prem Chaudhary, Account No.5010047xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh, Account No.5010059xxxxx Primary Account Holder Prem Chaudhary, Account No. 5020007xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh Account No. 50100605xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh, Account No. 5020007xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh, Account No. 5020007xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh, Account No.5020009xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh and Account No. 5010073xxxxx Primary Account Holder Rajinder Singh with HDFC Bank near HUDA Market, in front of S.P. Kothi, Jind out of whom some are their joint accounts. Accused Saloni Goyal was their rela'onship Bank Manager. Some days ago, officials of HDFC Bank came to him and told that installments of his agricultural loan are due whereupon they replied that they have only get the loan sanc'oned, they have not withdrawn the amount of loan. They further told him that as per their record complete payment has been made to them. Accused Saloni Goyal alongwith her husband were residing in their house as a tenant and they were trea'ng them as their family members. Believing upon them, they handed over their passbooks, cheque books etc. and taking advantage of their belief, they (accused) had transferred Rs. 9 crores in their accounts or in the accounts of their rela'ves. Some other persons namely Mohit Goyal, Kapil Goyal, Kaplesh Kumar, Meena Goyal, Sant Kumar Goyal, Sanjeev Goyal, Rahul, David Saini, Ashes Rastogi, Gagan, Vijay Nayyar, Mahesh and Ramesh are also conspired with said Saloni Goyal."

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶6The complainant's counsel does not oppose the bail subject to the rider that this bail shall not be a precedent or ground for the remaining accused. order/judgment. 2

¶7On 25 October 20024, the pe!!oner handed over Rs 3.5 lacs by Demand DraC to the complaint, which was observed in the Court's interim order.

¶8It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the status report, which read as follows: "12. That regarding complicity of the pe''oner is concerned, it is submiCed that the allega'ons against the pe''oner-accused are serious in nature. Ini'ally, on 26.08.2024, at the 'me of preliminary enquiry of the complaint the accused Saloni Goyal was joined in the enquiry and she made statement that out of the cheated amount of Rs. 9 Crore approx, she had sent money in the bank accounts of various persons, which includes her husband, brother, mother and uncle Sanjeev Kumar etc. As per account statement, annexure P-2, of the pe''oner-accused, on

23.11.2022, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been transferred in the bank account of the pe''oner-accused by the accused Saloni Goyal. The pe''oner-accused had extended threats to the complainant and his wife if they will take any ac'on the main accused Saloni Goyal. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the fact that the main accused Saloni Goyal is the daughter of the pe''oner-accused and she is yet to be arrested and the pe''oner-accused is not disclosing her whereabouts, it would not be in the interest of jus'ce to grant concession of an'cipatory bail to the pe''oner-accused. AEer arrest of the main accused Saloni Goyal only it shall be clear that how much amount has been transferred in favour of the pe''oner-accused and in which of his accounts. The custodial interroga'on of the pe''oner-accused is required for unearthing the true facts and recovery of money transferred in the account of the pe''oner by the accused Saloni Goyal. Without custodial interroga'on of the pe''oner-accused, the inves'ga'on cannot be conducted effec'vely."

¶9Pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu!on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an!cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus!fy custodial interroga!on or pre-trial incarcera!on.

¶10Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons, no objec!on of the complainant and the other order/judgment. 3 factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus!fiability for custodial interroga!on or the pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage. Without commen!ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men!oned above, the pe!!oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the !me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶11Considering the peculiar situa!on, the pe!!oner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for gran!ng bail to the other co-accused.

¶12Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on an!cipatory bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the Arres!ng Officer, and if the ma(er is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶13While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the a(es!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶14This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶15The pe''oner is directed to join the inves'ga'on as and when called by the Inves'gator. The pe!!oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec!on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec!on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe!!oner shall join the inves!ga!on as and when called by the Inves!ga!ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves!ga!on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu!on will be open to seeking cancella!on of the bail. During the inves!ga!on, the pe!!oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶16The pe!!oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police orJYOTI order/judgment. 4 the Court.

¶17In case the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta!on arraigns another sec!on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec!on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec!ons men!oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec!on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec!ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec!ons men!oned above; then, in that case, the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe!!oner no!ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶18This bail is condi!onal, and the founda!onal condi!on is that if the pe!!oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica!on for cancella!on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶19Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶20A cer!fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe!!oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a(est it to be a true copy. If the a(es!ng officer wants to verify its authen!city, such an officer can also verify its authen!city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a(es!ng bonds.

¶21Pe11on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

19.12.2024 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 12.12.2024 Pronounced on: 19.12.2024 Sant Kumar Goyal ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Thamman, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana. Dr. Anmol Ra(an Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kanishk Swaroop, Advocate for the complainant. ****