In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 02.04.2026 Pronounced On: 07.05.2026 Ankit Goel ... Petitioner(s)

Versus Serious Fraud Investigation Office ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India with Mr. Y.S.Thakur, Advocate for the respondent.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, hereinafter being referred to as “BNSS” only, has been filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail, by virtue of present petition, has been sought with regard to a complaint case, bearing No. COMA/17/2021 dated 11.06.2021, titled as “Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. SRS Limited Etc.”, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (designated under the Companies Act, 2013), Gurugram, hereinafter being referred to as “the trial Court” only. The above-mentioned complaint has been filed for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 439(2) read with Section 436(1)(a) and (d) read with proviso to Section 212(6) read with Section

212(14) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 621(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.

2. Heard.

3. At the very threshold, it has been contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a person who was never arrested by the Investigating Agency, i.e. the respondent, during the course of investigation despite the fact that during the course of investigation the petitioner was available and ready to participate in the investigation. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, since during the course of investigation the petitioner was never arrested, and on completion of investigation the complaint has already been filed, now the detention of petition in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose.

4. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also the role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of crime is not prominent role, and that on the basis of vague allegations only a trivial role has been attributed to him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire evidence, which has been collected by the Investigating Agency, is documentary in nature and therefore, the detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to produce any fruitful result.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further contended that otherwise also, in view of the fact that during the course of investigation, he was never arrested by the Investigating Agency, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of “Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office” 2024 SCC OnLine SC 971, the petitioner has got a right to furnish bail bonds.

According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of “Tarsem Lal” (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with a similar situation, has observed that once the investigation is complete and the cognizance on the complaint has been taken by the Court, the only purpose of seeking the bail bonds, to be furnished by the accused, is to ensure his presence during the course of trial.

6. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that past conduct of the petitioner shows that he never absconded, and that there is no apprehension that if released on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate in the trial to be conducted by the learned Special Court (designated under the Companies Act, 2013). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of “Tarsem Lal” (supra), the petitioner cannot be taken into custody by the learned trial Court, even if his bailable warrants have been issued, and that in such eventuality, as per the guidel