Piyush Goyal vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court held that the interim bail granted to the petitioners, Piyush Goyal and Pawan Kumar Goyal, should be made absolute. The reasoning was based on the undisputed facts presented by the petitioners that the investigation concerning them had concluded and that they had extended full cooperation to the respondent-parties, rendering their custodial interrogation unnecessary. The Court took into consideration the fact that the petitioners had been on interim bail for a considerable period. The ratio decidendi is that when an investigation concerning an accused has concluded, and they have cooperated with the authorities, continued grant of interim bail, which is then made absolute, is justified, especially when custodial interrogation is not required. The operative direction was to make the interim bail orders absolute. The Court also directed that the petitioners shall continue to appear before the Trial Court till the final decision of the lis, if required.

Facts

Two petitions were filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail for petitioners Piyush Goyal and Pawan Kumar Goyal. They are accused in a complaint case filed by the Director General of CGST Intelligence against Pawan Kumar Goyal and another, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioners had been granted interim bail on 19.03.2025 and 06.02.2025, respectively, and had continued on interim bail since then. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the investigation concerning them was concluded, they had cooperated fully, and their custodial interrogation was not required. The State counsel, on instructions, did not dispute these facts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim bail granted to the petitioners, Piyush Goyal and Pawan Kumar Goyal, should be made absolute, considering the conclusion of the investigation and their cooperation. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the investigation concerning them had been concluded. They further contended that they had extended full cooperation to the respondent-parties and that their custodial interrogation was no longer required. They relied on the fact that they had been on interim bail since March 19, 2025, and February 6, 2025, respectively. Revenue/State's Argument: The State counsel, on instructions from ASI Pawan Kumar, did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioners regarding the conclusion of the investigation and their cooperation.