Allowed¶30

Sagar Goyal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2025NABAIL/7270/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 482 BNSS; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021) 10 SCC 773; Category A offence punishable up to seven years; charge-sheet filed; summons; Article 21 Constitution of India; Section 41-A I.P.C.; parity with co-accused Karuna Tyagi; sections 406, 420, 506 IPC; P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad; personal bond Rs. 50,000; two sureties; passport deposit condition; Allahabad High Court; Vivek Varma J.; September 8, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, applicants Sagar Goyal and Abhijeet Goyal to be released during pendency of trial on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to stated conditions; the application stands disposed of. ¶30

Sagar Goyal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants (Sagar Goyal and Abhijeet Goyal) are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in Case Crime No.1430 of 2019 under sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants, that non-payment of money or breach of contractual terms would at the most constitute a civil wrong, absence of substantive evidence linking the applicants with the offence, parity with identically placed co-accused Karuna Tyagi who was already granted anticipatory bail, offences punishable up to seven years, adherence to the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), filed charge-sheet, cooperation in investigation and no need of custodial interrogation, the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Where the accused, for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, were not arrested during investigation and did not fail to cooperate, and stand charge-sheeted and summoned, their liberty is required to be protected in view of the Supreme Court's guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), which recognize the liberty of the individual in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

Key takeaways

In the event of arrest, the applicants are to be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of availability on each fixed date, abstention from inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts, and not leaving India without previous permission of the Court with deposit of any passport before the concerned court; on default of any condition the court concerned may pass appropriate enforcing orders.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vivek Varma, J.) allowed an anticipatory bail application u/s 482 BNSS by Sagar Goyal and Abhijeet Goyal in Case Crime No.1430 of 2019 (sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad), arising from a 2017 business transaction where non-payment/breach would at most be a civil wrong. Adhering to the Supreme Court guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years where the charge-sheet stands filed and the accused, though summoned, was neither arrested nor uncooperative, and noting parity with identically placed co-accused Karuna Tyagi (order dated 02.09.2025 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6925 of 2025), absence of criminal antecedents and no showing of flight, tampering or intimidation risk, the Court directed that in the event of arrest the applicants be released during pendency of trial on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, conditioned on appearance on each date, abstention from inducement/threat/promise, and no departure from India without permission (passport, if held, to be deposited); without commenting on merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7270 of 2025

¶3

Sagar Goyal And Another .....	Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajiv Sisodia, Dwivedi	Shashank
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 69

¶5

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.1430 of 2019, under sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants and the informant in the year 2017 had entered into a business transaction. Further, non payment of money or breach of contractual terms would, at the most, constitute a civil wrong. The essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are not made out. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicants with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Karuna Tyagi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6925 of 2025. Investigation has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicants had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants have been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel

¶9

NABAIL No. 7270 of 2025

¶10

¶11

for applicants further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶13

The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

It is further to be noted that as per Section 41-A I.P.C. also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

¶15

It is not the case of the opposite party that applicants were arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicants had not cooperated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been

¶16

NABAIL No. 7270 of 2025

¶17

¶18

raised with regard to the conduct of the applicants and the applicants have been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offences in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

¶19

It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would dis-entitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶21

Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicants and the fact that non payment of money or breach of contractual terms would, at the most, constitute a civil wrong, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicants with the offence, identically placed co-accused Karuna Tyagi has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court; the fact that the offences against the applicants are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶22

In the event of arrest, the applicants Sagar Goyal and

¶23

NABAIL No. 7270 of 2025

¶24

¶25

Abhijeet Goyal be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶27

(ii) the applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶28

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court.

¶29

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶30

The application stands disposed of.

¶31

September 8, 2025 Lbm/-

¶32

(Vivek Varma,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sagar Goyal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Goyal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases