Sahil Goyal vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the case involves allegations of cheating and forgery, but it is primarily based on documentary evidence. The petitioner is not required for further investigation as the challan has already been presented. The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the potential sentence upon conviction, the petitioner's antecedents, and the principle that pre-trial incarceration should not serve as a substitute for post-conviction punishment. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the bail petition and would not affect the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Sahil Goyal, sought regular bail in FIR No. 127 dated 10.06.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 340(2), and 336 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was based on a complaint by Ravipal Singh, alleging that in December 2024, the petitioner offered to supply cement at a project rate. The complainant paid ₹48,60,500/- for 16,270 bags of ACC cement. The petitioner supplied only 700 bags and issued fake bills in the name of Agarwal & Company, using the same GST number as Goyal Traders. The petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2025, and the investigation has been completed, with a challan presented.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of cheating and forgery, the stage of investigation, and the petitioner's custody period? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, is in custody for a considerable period, and the trial will take time. He claimed clean antecedents and asserted that the dispute is civil in nature, based on documentary evidence. His continued incarceration was deemed unnecessary. Respondent's Arguments: The State of Punjab argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, and therefore, the bail petition should not be allowed.