CRM-M/42009/2026 of SANDEEP GOYAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 2 September 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42009

107 (3rd rdrd rd case) case) case) case) IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG

Sandeep Goy State of Hary

Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present: Present: Present: Present:-

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

Nagarik Sura P.C.) for gra No.0109 dat Sections 316( District Amba

2. of the State, r 9-2026

GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42009

42009-2 yal versus yana sion: sion: sion: sion: September 02 September 02 September 02 September 02, , , , 2026

ading: ading: ading: ading: September 02 September 02 September 02 September 02, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advoca Mr. Umesh Sharma, Advocate fo Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Sen Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate ***** ***** ***** *****

OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) , J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed un aksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN ant of anticipatory bail to the ted 17.06.2026, registered for (2), 318(4) and 61 of the BNS, 20 ala. The role attributed to the petition reads thus: “8. ROLE OF THE PETITI ROLE OF THE PETITI ROLE OF THE PETITI ROLE OF THE PETITI EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE:

HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondent EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL ate with r the petitioner. nior DAG Haryana. for the complainant. nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya NSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. petitioner, in case bearing FIR the offences punishable under 023, at Police Station Shahzadpur, ner, as per reply dated 01.09.2026 TIONER AND INCRIMINATING TIONER AND INCRIMINATING TIONER AND INCRIMINATING TIONER AND INCRIMINATING

r t a . R r ,

G G G G MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.02 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42009

42009-2026

That accused-petitioner Sandeep Goel is the principal mastermind and main perpetrator behind the entire fraudulent racket. The specific incriminating material and evidence established against him during the investigation includes: i. The petitioner deliberately targeted complainant Geja Ram, an illiterate, 76-year-old, visually impaired person, by gaining his confidence under the guise of managing his finances and protecting him from income tax liabilities. The petitioner dishonestly retained the complainant's original Aadhaar card, PAN card, bank passbook, chequebook, and blank signed papers to facilitate unauthorized transfers. ii. The petitioner manipulated the complainant and executed four separate sale deeds (Deed Nos. 259 & 260 dated 07.05.2024, Deed No. 384 dated 28.05.2024, and Deed No. 1760 dated 10.01.2025) for land measuring 13 Kanal 06 Marla 06 Sarsahi at dirt-cheap/nominal prices against prevailing market values exceeding ₹3 to 5 Crores per acre, without obtaining the consent of the complainant's legal heirs. iii. The petitioner artificially deposited funds into the complainant's account solely to create a false defence of valid sale consideration, thereafter money is received back in the form of cash from the complainant. iv. The statement of independent witness Sh. Hari Babu (former Sarpanch) herein attached as the true translated copy of the statement as Annexure R-1 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, along with bank account statements of Haryana Gramin Bank (Annexure R-2). v. The co-accused Kamlesh Rani's statement during interrogation dated 09.07.2026 confirms that petitioner Sandeep Goel handled all real estate negotiations, arranged witnesses, and managed all monetary dealings for the fraudulent purchase. That the true translated copy of abovementioned statement is being annexed herein as Annexure R-3 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.”

3. Learned senior counsel has submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merits. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has been contended that valid consideration was paid by the petitioner after agreement to sell through cheque or cash and, thus, no fraud has been committed by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that mutations were also sanctioned. It has further been submitted that partition application has also been preferred before the competent authority, which is pending adjudication. Learned senior counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner has instituted Civil Suit No.109 of 2026 seeking a decree of MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.02 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42009

42009-2026

permanent injunction against the defendants therein. According to learned senior counsel, even assuming that there was any discrepancy or deficiency in the sale consideration, the complainant-side could have availed the appropriate remedy; however, no civil suit has been instituted at the end of the complainant to the effect that the sale deed in question is bad. Learned senior counsel has, thus, contended that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no offence of cheating, whatsoever, is made out against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has urged that as the price of the land in question has been increased, therefore, the entire controversy/mischief is being created against the petitioner.

3.1. Learned senior counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation. It has been urged that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 01.09.2026, in Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. It has been argued that the petitioner fraudulently got executed four separate sale deeds at nominal prices against the market value without obtaining the consent of complainant’s legal heirs. Learned State counsel has also submitted that the petitioner does not bear clean antecedents and there are other FIR(s) registered MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.02 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42009

42009-2026

against him. It has been further argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is indispensable. It has been contended that, in case, the petitioner is accorded concession of anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

6. As per the prosecution case, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. A perusal of the prosecution case as well as the material available on record prima facie reveals that the petitioner is alleged to have fraudulently got registered four separate sale deeds at nominal consideration, substantially below the prevailing market value. Perusal of the reply filed by the State further, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner artificially deposited funds into the complainant’s account with the sole intention of creating a false defence of payment of valid sale consideration and, thereafter, received the said amount back from the complainant in cash. The nature of allegations does not persuade this Court to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.1. That apart, the petitioner is stated to be involved in other FIR(s). The said criminal antecedents reveal that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a tendency to indulge in criminal activities. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner also raise a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar criminal activities, misuse the concession of bail, or MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.02 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42009

42009-2026

interfere with the fair course of justice. The possibility of his absconding or influencing prosecution witnesses also cannot be ruled out, particularly in view of his repeated involvement in criminal cases.

6.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State State State State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : SCC 187 : SCC 187 : SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under: “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.02 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-42009

42009-2026

knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

8. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record, preliminary investigation, serious allegations and the petitioner having no clean antecedents, appear to establish a reasonable basis for his accusation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed.

9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE September 02 September 02 September 02 September 02, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.09.02 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment