Deepak Goyal vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Goyal, sought regular bail pending trial in an FIR registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and forgery. The FIR was based on a complaint alleging that the petitioner and co-accused induced the complainant to believe they could secure loans at low rates. The complainant alleged that the accused took his documents, transferred money from his firm, and subsequently, loans were obtained in the name of the complainant's firm, Satyam Industries, without his knowledge. The complainant discovered this when contacted by financial institutions regarding outstanding loans. The petitioner argued that a civil suit was filed prior to the FIR, and an MOU dated March 21, 2019, indicated business dealings between the complainant and a co-accused, Manoj Kumar, to which the petitioner was not a party. The petitioner asserted no money was credited to his account, and no documents were forged by him.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The Court noted that a civil suit was pending between the parties, and an MOU dated March 21, 2019, indicated commercial transactions between the complainant and a co-accused, Manoj Kumar, to which the petitioner was not a party. The Court found that the petitioner was not a party to this MOU, suggesting he was alien to the dispute between the complainant and Manoj Kumar. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that no money was credited to his account, which was not rebutted. The vagueness of allegations regarding cash payments, the absence of receipts, and the lack of specific dates for such payments were also considered. The Court observed that no bank officials were arrayed as accused, making the process of loan sanction and fund transfer to an account not belonging to the complainant difficult to visualize without connivance. The Court stated that no amount was shown to have been credited to the petitioner's account, and no material indicated forgery by the petitioner. Considering the petitioner had been in custody since August 3, 2021, the challan had been filed, the dispute was based on documentary evidence, a civil suit was pending, and the case was triable by a Magistrate, the Court granted bail. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail pending trial, considering the allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, and the stage of proceedings, particularly in light of the pending civil suit and the existence of an MOU between the complainant and a co-accused? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 419, 406, 420, 467, 471, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and principles of bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR was registered after a civil suit was filed, and the MOU dated March 21, 2019, shows business dealings between the complainant and co-accused Manoj Kumar, to which the petitioner is not a party. He contended that no money was credited to his account, and no documents were forged by him. The allegations of cash payment were vague. The petitioner also highlighted that no bank officials were arrayed as accused, making it difficult to visualize how loans could be sanctioned without their connivance. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (State of Haryana) did not present any arguments on the bail petition in the provided text.