Deepak Goyal vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Goyal, sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 22 dated 12.01.2021, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and forgery. The complainant, Abhishek Arora, alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, allured him with low-interest loans. They obtained photocopies of crucial documents like partnership deeds, PAN cards, bank statements, and digital signatures, and photographs of his factory. The complainant transferred money to the petitioner's firm, Manu Enterprises. Subsequently, the complainant discovered outstanding loans of Rs. 54 lacs in his name and Rs. 2 crores in his firm's name, M/s Satyam Industries, alleging misuse of his documents and impersonation to obtain loans from multiple banks. The complainant had closed his firm and surrendered his GST number prior to the complaint.

Held

The Court held that the allegations against the petitioner were serious, involving the misuse of the complainant's documents and those of his partner to avail forged loans, leading to significant financial implications. The petitioner was accused of forging signatures and documents, opening forged accounts, and committing fraud. The Court noted that the complainant had closed his firm and surrendered his GST number before the alleged misuse of documents. The petitioner's involvement in 7 other FIRs of a similar nature was not disputed. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court reiterated that Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Given the nature and gravity of the accusations, the amount involved, and the petitioner's involvement in multiple other cases, the Court found that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the modus operandi. Therefore, the petitioner failed to make out a case for anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the serious allegations of fraud and forgery involving substantial financial implications? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR was based on misrepresentation and a concocted story by the complainant to save himself. He denied receiving any documents or loans in the complainant's firm's name, stating no RTGS or cheque transactions occurred with him. He claimed the complainant transferred money to Manu Enterprises, where he had no connection, and that Manoj Kumar was the sole proprietor. The petitioner argued that the complainant manipulated the story and should be tried as an accused, citing bank statements showing security cheques for loans in his firm's name. He asserted that merely being seen in a co-accused's office was insufficient to implicate him. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and complainant argued that the petitioner fabricated documents, obtained loans, and committed fraud. They stated the petitioner misused documents after the complainant closed his firm. They further highlighted that the petitioner was involved in numerous similar cases and was currently confined in Tihar Jail, indicating a habitual offender. The complainant's counsel added that the petitioner was involved in 7 other similar cases, and in one instance, bail was cancelled due to misuse.