Himachal Pradesh High Court: The present bail application was filed by the petitioner, involved in a Rs 500 crore crypto-currency fraud, for grant of regular bail in a case under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), read with Section 5 of the H.P. Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. A Single Judge Bench of Sushil Kukreja, J., held that the petitioner could not be granted bail considering the larger interest of public and the State, as he was involved in an economic offence of a magnitude that adversely impacted the nation’s economy and there was no substantial change in his circumstances since his previous bail application.
Background:
On 24-09-2023, the complainant alleged that a group of individuals, including the petitioner, were engaged in fraudulent activities related to crypto-currency via websites like Voscrow and Hypenext, and they enticed people to invest substantial amounts, promising high returns, which resulted in a collective loss of Rs 18 crore to the complainant and his associates. On 26-09-2023 a Special Investigation Team was constituted for investigating various crypto-currency fraud cases across the State. It was unearthed that the modus operandi of the alleged fraud involved alluring individuals with promise of high returns on crypto-currency investments, creating a network of investors, who recruited others, manipulating crypto-currency prices and ultimately causing financial loss to the victims.
During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was introduced as a new member to actively promote the Korvio crypto platform and he orchestrated events where he delivered speeches rife with fabricated and exaggerated content. He asserted that the price of the Korvio Coin was organically increasing based on demand but in reality, the price was manipulated according to their whims. it was allegedly asserted that once the coin reached a certain threshold, its value would never drop below $10. When investors sought withdrawals for the coins they held, the petitioner instructed investors to activate new IDs by using their coins and to collect case from these new joiners against the coins utilized for the activation of those IDs. On 16-08-2021, the petitioner announced the closure of Korvio Coin associated with Voscrow Company and revealed that all the previous coins assets, were being transferred to a new company named DGT. According to this plan, the investors were promised doubling of their staked coins within one year.
It was contended that the petitioner had no role in the instant case and that there was inordinate delay in the conclusion of trial which infringed upon the right of speedy trial as he was in custody since 28-10-2023 and therefore, he deserved to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. However, the Advocate General contended that it was a successive bail application which was liable to be dismissed as there was no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application on 24-08-2024.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, wherein it was held that successive bail application could be entertained by the Court only when substantial change was established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in the successive bail application. The Court also relied on State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673, where it was observed that when there were no changed circumstances, the successive bail application was nothing but review of the earlier application which was not maintainable.
The Court thus observed that while entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court had a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what were the fresh grounds which warranted the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh. The Court opined that there must be change in the fact, situation or in law which required the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding had become obsolete and observed that the petitioner’s counsel failed to point out any substantial change in the circumstances after the dismissal of his earlier bail application, which would entitle the petitioner for release on bail.
The Court noted that around 80,000 investors had fallen victims to the fraudulent scheme, and over the past four years there was a total investment of about Rs 2000 crore and there was an estimated loss of Rs 500 crore to the investors. The petitioner was a close associate of the main accused and was one of the top liners in the chain after the main accused had absconded and moved out of India.
The Court opined that though an under-trial prisoner could not be detained in custody for an indefinite period, but mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial was not likely to be concluded in near future did not entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, as he was prima facie found involved in an economic offence of huge magnitude. The Court referred to Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari, (2019) 9 SCC 165, where it was held that stringent view must be taken by the Court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences. Further, in State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, it was reiterated that where there was seriousness of the offence, the mere fact that the accused was languishing in jail during trial should not be the concern of the Courts.
The Court opined that the present case was an economic offence which were considered grave offences as they affected the country’s economy and therefore in such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court had to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and the State. Thus, considering the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in commission of the economic offence of such a magnitude in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the Court dismissed the bail application holding that it was not appropriate to enlarge him on bail at this stage.
[Abhishek Sharma v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 3705, decided on 08-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Manoj Pathak, Advocate.
For the Respondent: J.S. Guleria and Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocates General.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
