Kapil Goyal v. State of Haryana

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

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 483 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular 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 reply 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 Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Bharat Singh, resident of H.No.1152, UE Jind. 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 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 order/judgment. 1 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of his agricultural loan are due whereupon they replied that they have only get the loan sanc'oned, they have not withdrawn the amount of loan.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 (present pe''oner), 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 reply.

¶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.

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read order/judgment. 2 as follows: "12. That regarding complicity of the pe''oner is concerned, it is submiDed 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 disclosed 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. During the course of inves'ga'on it has been surfaced that on 14.09.2022, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- has been transferred from the bank account of complainant in the bank account No.50200xxxxxx of HDFC Bank of M/s JD Suite Collec'on. ThereaEer, on 24.07.2024 rupees one lac (Rs.1 lac) in another bank account No.92402xxxxxxx of Axis Bank of M/s JD Suite Collec'on, have been transferred. A total of 16 lacs have been transferred from the bank account of the complainant in the bank accounts of M/s JD Suite Collec'on and the affairs of the JD Suite Collec'ons which is in the name of the mother of the pe''oner, were supervised by the pe''oner himself. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the fact that the main accused Saloni Goyal sister of the pe''oner is s'll evading her arrest and the accused are not disclosing her whereabouts, it would not be in the interest of jus'ce to grant concession of regular bail to the pe''oner-accused. AEer arrest of the main accused Saloni Goyal sister of the pe''oner, 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."

¶8Pre-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.

¶9Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons and the other 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 order/judgment. 3 webpage.

¶10Considering 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.

¶11Given 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.

¶12While 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)

¶13This order is subject to the pe

oner's complying with the following terms.

¶14The 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 or the Court.

¶15In 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.

¶16This 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 order/judgment. this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶17Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶18A 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.

¶19Pe11on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

19.12.2024 Jyo -II order/judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 12.12.2024 Pronounced on: 19.12.2024 Kapil 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 for the pe!!oner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana. Dr. Anmol Ra'an Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar Goyat, Advocate, for the complainant. ****