CRM-M/38671/2026 of SAURABH GOYAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 2 September 2026

1. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. to place on record certain documents as Annexures P-9 to P-12.

2. Application is allowed.

3. Annexures P-9 to P-12 are taken on record.

4. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. Main case

1. This is the first petition for seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (U/s 439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No. 260 dated 07.10.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61, 319 (2) of BNS 2023 (Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 419 of IPC), registered at Police Station Sector-14 JANKI BHATT

Gurugram, District Gurugram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of several companies through their authorised representative namely Sanjay Kumar Dhiman, alleging that Pushpanjali Enterprises through its proprietor Saurabh Goel (petitioner) and his associates had committed large-scale commercial fraud. It is alleged that initially small orders for goods were placed and payments were timely made so as to gain the confidence of the suppliers. Thereafter, bulk orders amounting to several crores were allegedly placed, goods were obtained through purchase orders, tax invoices and e-way bills, however, payment for the same was not made. It is further alleged that thereafter the business operations were shut down and the accused persons absconded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The matter pertains to rendition of accounts and petitioner is willing to settle the matter with the complainant as it is a commercial dispute. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months and 13 days and is not involved in any other case. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months and 13 days.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the JANKI BHATT

parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the matter pertains to rendition of accounts and it is a commercial dispute; the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 months and 13 days and is not involved in any other case; challan has already been presented; the trial is likely to take time and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’.

8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

9. Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

10. It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order, if the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(H.S.GREWAL) 02.09.2026

JUDGE Janki Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JANKI BHATT