Supreme Court: In a petition seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 409 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 3 and 4 of Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. granted bail to the petitioner considering the fact that he had been in custody since 30-04-2022.
The petitioner in the instant matter was a freelancer digital marketer having 4 or more First Information Reports (‘FIRs’) registered against himself in different states. It was alleged that Bux Coin – cryptocurrency was launched by company named ‘Bitsolives’, run by the co-accused allegedly into the business of blockchain development, cryptocurrency and forex trading etc. It was alleged that the petitioner portrayed himself as the master distributor of Bux Coin – cryptocurrency and director of Bitsolives. It was stated that various investors from different states purchased cryptocurrency from this company. Thereafter, a sham exchange called ‘Cash Finex’ was set up by the petitioner and his co-accused from Dubai and the investors in the company were allured to sell their cryptocurrency through that platform, which was allegedly closed after some time and the company also disappeared.
The petitioner had been in custody since 30-04-2022, already subjected to interrogation by State Police of Maharashtra and Gujarat, presently in judicial custody in Gujarat.
The Court noted that investigation was complete, charge sheet was filed and trial was yet to commence, and its conclusion was likely to take some time. In addition, the Court was cautious that the ongoing trial might be delayed after the fact that some of the co-accused were statedly absconding.
The Court found merit in the State’s apprehension regarding possibility of misuse of concession of bail, being cautious of absconding or starting business of cryptocurrency again, but considering the period already spent in custody, the Court directed the release of petitioner.
Conditions subjected to the petitioner while granting bail included depositing original title deeds of a property situated in Delhi, passport, etc. The Court restrained him from reactivating Bitsolives, the Exchange Cash Finex or any other online module to indulge in the business of sale-purchase of cryptocurrency. The Court also restricted petitioner’s access to website of Bitsolives or Cash Finex or any other similar platform except prior approval of competent authorities.
[Ganesh Shivkumar Sagar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 903, Order dated 27-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, Advocate Ankit Verma, Advocate Arvind Mishra, Advocate S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Advocate Ved Prakash Verma, Advocate Ram Kishan, Advocate Niti Singh, Advocate Archana Kumari, Advocate Navin Kumar, Advocate Mahesh Sharma, Advocate on Record Satish Kumar;
For Respondents: Advocate on Record Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate Devyani Bhatt, Advocate Himanshi Shakya.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
