Bail granted as uncorroborated confessions of co-accused are inadmissible at the bail stage.

ORDER

Ashutosh Srivastava, J. – Heard Shri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Raza Abbas and Shri Vishal, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Manish Goyal, learned A.A.G. assisted by Shri Arvind Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. The Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7994 of 2026 under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, at the instance of the applicant-Pradeep Goyal, has been filed seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C., P.S. Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the officiating Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated 19.12.2025 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 19.12.2025.

3. The Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8555 of 2026 relates to Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. while Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 11771 of 2026 related to Case Crime No. 255 of 2023 and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 11675 of 2026 related to Case Crime No. 203 of 2023 raising similar allegations. Investigation in all the three case crime numbers is being conducted jointly and as such the bail applications are being decided by a common order.

4. The Case Crime No. 203/2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gataum Buddh Nagar is stated to have been lodged by the informant Saurabh Dwivedi, a journalist and working as an Editor of the Lallantop internet news portal and India Today Hindi Magazine. It is alleged that came across two GST registrations viz. 03AUSPD7067N1Z3 and 27AUSPD7067N1ZT obtained in the State of Punjab and Maharashtra respectively w.e.f. 20.03.2023. These have been applied on informant PAN AUSPD7067N and bear his name, Saurabh Dwivedi as legal name of the business entity. These have not been obtained with his consensus and he is totally unaware of the person who applied for these registrations and whose contact details are updated in these GST registrations. It is also mentioned that the two registrations are already authenticated for Aadhaar verification whereas as on date no email ID and mobile number is linked with his Aadhaar. Further it has been learnt that similar registration has been applied in the UT of Delhi, however, the same got rejected by the GST authorities. The acknowledgement number generated after filing of GST registration application is AA070323054161Q. Hence, the FIR has been lodged.

5. The Case Crime No. 248/2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gataum Buddh Nagar is stated to have been lodged by the informant Sumit Yadav with the allegation that he came to know about registration of fake firm, Yadav Traders, against his PAN Card No. AHFPX9874Q and the address is recorded as Ground Floor JL No. 219 Khatian No. 2275 dag no. 1835, Sahibganj Road, near Sahibganj, High School, Kharimala, Khagrabari Cooch behar West Bengal 736101. Said Firm is got registered fallaciously against informant PAN Card AHFPX9874Q. It has been registered illegally by some unknown miscreants. Informant has mentioned his permanent address as K-11 Gyan Sarowar Colony, Ramghat Road, Aligarh, and present address as J-41, Senior Citizen Society, Greater Noida. Thus, the FIR has been lodged.

6. The Case Crime No. 255/2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gataum Buddh Nagar is stated to have been lodged by the informant – Arvind Kumar Yadav, on being known about arrest of some persons who illegally got GST registration using PAN Card of the persons, checked on GSTSEARCH.in and found that three fake GST Numbers detailed in the FIR bearing: (1) GST No. 24ABBP43323J12N, (2) GST No. 24ABBPY43323J2ZM and (3) GST No. 06ABBPY3323J12L have been obtained by someone, whereas he or his family member never obtained any GST Number and has no concern with the firms. He has stated that his documents have been misused. Hence, the FIR has been lodged.

7. Shri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants while pressing the bail pleas vehemently submits that the applicants are entirely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the respective case crime numbers for ulterior motives. The F.I.Rs. giving rise to the case crime numbers have been lodged against unknown persons by the informant-Sumit Yadav with allegations that his PAN Card bearing No. AHFPX 9874 Q has been misused for creating a bogus firm in the name and style of “Yadav Traders” with address Ground Floor, JL No. 219, Khatain No. 2275, Dag No. 1835, Sahibganj Road near Sahibganj, High School, Karinala, Khagrabari, Cooch Behar, West Bengal-736101. The said firm has been got illegally registered and the informant has nothing to do with the same.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that the applicants belongs to a business family and are having business in UAE, Dubai and frequently travels from India to Dubai for business and work purposes. The applicants have not been named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that two other F.I.R.s giving rise to Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 255 of 2023 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. have been lodged and registered at P.S. Sector-20, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, against unknown persons and investigation of all the three cases is being conducted jointly by the I.O. concerned. It is next submitted that on the basis of the information of a police informer, the I.O. arrested two persons Ashwani Pandey and Yaseen Sheikh and recovered incriminating materials from the said two persons. On the strength of the confessional statements of the accused-Ashwani Pandey and Yaseen Sheikh, the police party conducted a raid at the office of Jiwalo Pvt. Ltd. in Madhu Vihar, Delhi, and arrested Deepak Murjani, Vineeta w/o Deepak Murjani, Vishal Singh, Aakash Saini, Atul Sengar and Rajeev. The police party also recovered mobile phones, SIM Cards, Laptops etc. and materials for preparing G.S.T. bills of Firms. The arrested accused persons i.e. Deepak Murjani, Vishal Singh and Atul Sengar in their confessional statements disclosed the names of Pradeep Goyal and his son Anchit Goyal and that after registering the fake/bogus Firms/Companies, they were sold to Pradeep Goyal and Anchit Goyal, as also to Mayur alias Mani Nagpal, Charu Nagpal, Rohit Nagpal, Deepak Singhal and Archit Goyal. The I.O. on the strength of the statements recorded, also arrested Rajiv Maheshwari, Rahul Gupta, Gaurav Singhal, Gurmit Singh Batra, and their statements were also got recorded. It is also submitted that the I.O. in the late night of 12.07.2023, conducted a raid at the Adarsh Nagar, residence of the applicants, but no incriminating material was recovered. On the same day, the I.O. is alleged to have moved an application in Case Crime No. 248 of 2023 seeking issuance of N.B.W. against the applicant-Pradeep Goyal, which was allowed by the learned C.J.M., Gautam Buddha Nagar, vide order dated 13.07.2023. Subsequently, charge-sheet against the Pradeep Goyal was filed on 09.03.2024 and the Court concerned also took cognizance of the same and issued N.B.W. against the applicant. It is contended that the C.J.M. also passed an order attaching the residential house in the name of the wife of the applicant-Pradeep Goyal. It is next submitted that Pradeep Goyal and his son Anchit Goyal went to UAE from India on 14.06.2023. The applicants had valid work permit issued on 04.08.2023 and valid upto 03.08.2025. It is further submitted that “Look Out Circular” was issued against the applicants while they were in UAE and also the “Red Corner Notices (RCN)” were also made operative against the applicants. It is next submitted that Pradeep Goyal and his son Anchit Goyal were permitted to travel to India by the intervention of the Court and the “Look Out Circular/Red Corner Notices” were kept in abeyance. The applicants were arrested in India on 17.12.2025 and appeared on 19.12.2025 before the court of learned C.J.M., Gautam Buddha Nagar, and filed bail applications in all the three cases. The bail application in all the three cases were rejected and the applicants were taken under judicial custody on 19.12.2025 itself.

9. In the above backdrops, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argues that besides the confessional statements there is absolutely no material to implicate the applicants in the commission of the crime. Admittedly, the applicants had travelled to the UAE on 14.06.2025 for business purposes as they usually did. The previous travel was on 13.02.2023. The applicants cannot be termed as an absconder as no restrictions existed for their travel abroad. Learned senior counsel has next contended that co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the bail pleas of co-accused as also the accused persons of Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, and 255 of 2023 by a common order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53010 of 2023 (Rajiv Jindal v. State of U.P.) along with connected matters had rejected the bail applications. The SLPs were filed against the order dated 31.08.2024 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 25.10.2024 while granting leave and entertaining the criminal appeals, allowed the same observing that in all the offences alleged the same were Magistrate triable offences and charge-sheet had been filed. The appellants therein were directed to be produced before the trial court within a minimum period of two weeks and the trial court was directed to enlarge the appellants on bail on appropriate terms and conditions after hearing the public prosecutor. It is contended that the present applicants are equally circumstanced and are entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is also argued that the applicant-Pradeep Goayl is suffering from medical condition, is a heart patient with LVEF of 25% only and is not getting adequate medical attention in jail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

10. Per contra, the bail plea has been vehemently opposed by Shri Manish Goyal, learned A.A.G. for the State by submitting that investigation has revealed the complicity of the applicants along with co-accused persons in creating 2600 fraudulent firms and ITC to the tune of Rs. 26,452,895,600/-has been claimed by such bogus firms resulting in immense revenue losses to the government. In their statements, the accused have admitted to engaging in these illicit activities for several years. The accused constitute a massive syndicate that establishes Firms anywhere across India solely for the purposes of claiming ITC. Though, the applicants are not named in the instant F.I.R. but their names have surfaced on 01.06.2023 during the investigation of Case Crime No. 203 of 2023 when co-accused persons, namely Ashvini Pandey s/o Anil Kumar Pandey, Yasheen Sheikh s/o Hafiz Sheikh, Deepak Murjani s/o Late Shri Narayan Das Murjani, Vishal Singh s/o Ravindra Singh, Aakash Saini s/o Omkar Saini, Atul Sengar s/o Har Singh Pal, Rajiv s/o Subhash Chandra, Vinita w/o Deepak Murjani, were arrested and recovery was made from their possession. The arrested persons namely Deepak Murjani, Vishal Singh, Aakash Saini, Atul Sengar, Rajiv, Vinita have admitted in their statements that they were working under the supervision and in association with Pradeep Goyal and six others. It has been submitted by learned A.A.G. that Pradeep Goyal and his son Anchit Goyal and others have formed a syndicate and their modus operandi configures four segments (i) assignment of job of collection of SIM Cards and personal data of people that have been uploaded on the portal of GST (ii) to use the personal data for creation of fake Firms by uploading it on GST Portal, (iii) there will be one actual Firm which will be working and money transactions will flow to this actual Firm and Input Tax Credit (ITC) be availed (iv) distribution of monetary benefits amongst all. The applicant-Pradeep Goyal has been found to be credited with five criminal cases against him including the present case. The cases registered against the applicant are (i) Crime No. 248 of 2023, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C., P.S. Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar (present case), (ii) Case No. 255 of 2023, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Sector 20, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, (iii) Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Sector 20, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, (iv) Case Crime No. 0173 of 2024, u/s 2/3 of Gangster Act, Sector 20, Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar and (v) Case Crime No. 0432 of 2023, u/s 174-A of I.P.C., Sector 20, Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. It is contended that the applicants are yet to be released on bail in Case Crime Nos. 255 of 2023, Case Crime No. 203 of 2023 and the instant case. It is submitted that the materials disclosed in the statements of Deepak Murjani, Vishal Singh, Aakash Saini, Rajiv, Vinita w/o Deepak, Murjani have been found to be true and having substance. It is argued that the statements assume the character of corroborative statements and cannot be ignored. The complexion of the statements change from that of confessional to corroborative and establish the complicity of the applicants in the commission of the crime. The case of the applicants stands on a different footing and is clearly distinguishable as the applicants are seriously involved in the commission and perpetration of the crime. It is accordingly prayed that the bail plea of the applicants deserve outright rejection.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.

12. From the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon the perusal of the materials on record, it is borne out that the complicity of the applicants is sought to be established from the confessional statements of co-accused-Deepak Murjani, Vishal Singh and Atul Sengar. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the confessional statements of co-accused cannot be considered to establish the complicity of the applicants. The said contention has been rebutted by Shri Manish Goyal, learned A.A.G., who has submitted that the facts disclosed in the said statements of the co-accused have been found to be true in the investigation conducted and as such the complexion of the statements change from confessional to corroborative and hence warrants consideration. Shri Manish Goyal has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Indresh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 610 to contend that statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in evidence but can be relevant in considering the prima facie case against the accused in an application for grant of bail in cases of grave offences as in the present case. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Salim Khan v. Sanjai Singh 2002 (9) SCC 670 wherein the Apex Court while considering an application of the informant for cancellation of bail of the accused observed that the High Court was duty bound to consider all the statements recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., examine the gravity of the offence and also examine the question of possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and possibility of getting the attendance of the accused during the trial and then would be entitled to grant bail to an accused. Reliance is further placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi 2005(8) SCC 21 wherein the Apex Court observed as under:-

“22. While a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary. An examination of the material in this case, set out above, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, disclose prima facie, the existence of a conspiracy to which Amarmani and Madhumani were parties. The contentions of Respondents that the confessional statement of Rohit Chaturvedi is inadmissible in evidence and that should be excluded from consideration, for purpose of bail is untenable. This Court had negatived a somewhat similar contention, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) thus :

13. In a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andra Pradesh 2025 SCC Online SC 1157 while considering the confessions and statements of co-accused made under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and statements made u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the accused against co-accused after a detailed analysis of the legal position layed down the following:

” 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: –

14. While laying down the above, the Apex Court made the following observations in para no. 44, 45 & 46 of the aforesaid decision, which are as under:-

“44. We are conscious of a handful of decisions of this Court wherein it has been held that statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. ought to be looked into by the courts in deciding the question of grant of bail. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2411 observedSpecial Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7532-34 of 2025 Page 22 of 35 that “statements under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence”. Similarly, in Salim Khan v. Sanjai Singh reported in (2002) 9 SCC 670, it was held that the court is “duty-bound to consider all the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, examine the gravity of the offence and also examine the question of possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and possibility of getting the attendance of the accused during trial and then would be entitled to grant bail to an accused.

45. However, the aforesaid observations cannot be singled out and construed devoid of its context. While it is permissible for the courts to examine the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima-facie case has been made out against the accused and the nature or gravity of the allegations, the same applies only insofar as such police statements are of witnesses and not accused persons.

46. Both Indresh Kumar (supra) and Salim Khan (supra) have held that in deciding the question of grant of bail, it is the statements of witness under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhere has this Court held that even the police statements of the accused person under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. must also be looked into at the stage of grant of anticipatory or regular bail.”

15. Recently the Apex Court in the case of Vineet Jain v. Union of India  99 GSTL 129 (SC)/(Crl. Appeal No. 2269 of 2025) arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4349 of 2025 decided on 28.04.2025 set aside an order denying bail to the accused observing as under:-

“The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents.

We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances.”

16. In the case at hand, the Court finds that the only evidence against the applicants are their confessional statement and the statement of the coaccused. Charge sheet against the applicants have already been filed.

17. Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.

18. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.

19. Let the applicants, Pradeep Goyal and Anchit Goyal, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

20. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel their bail.