Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rupesh Rai vs State Of Mp on 28 July, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-13643-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-13643-2020
(RUPESH RAI Vs STATE OF MP)
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-07-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Alok Vagrecha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajeshwar Rao, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Rupesh Rai has been arrested on 07/09/2019 in connection with Crime No.20/2018 registered at Police Station S.T.F., Bhopal, District- Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the I.T. Act.
As per the prosecution case, applicant Rupesh Rai and co-accused Brajesh Raikwar who were the business head for the marketing of a cryptocurrency Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC) in India, by organizing seminars in hotels in many cities of India, publishing booklets and through the website assured complainants and other innocent investors that on purchasing the coin they would get guaranteed handsome returns within a certain period (at the time of maturity) thereby inducing the complainants and other innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme, took crores of rupees from innocent investors. Thereafter, under a pre-calibrated move, they started to lower down the price of that coin and lastly at the time of maturity, the value of the coin became zero. Thus, applicant and co-accused committed fraud with the complainant and other innocent investors and embezzled their amount.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant never instigated the complainants and other persons to invest their amount in Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC). The Signature Not Verified SAN complainants and other persons had invested at their own with the hope to get Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.07.28 16:06:37 IST 2 MCRC-13643-2020 huge benefit in the scheme. The present applicant has nothing to do with the same and he has not received any amount invested by the complainants and other persons in the scheme. Some of the complainants had also visited the Directors of the company in Hongkong and gathered information regarding investment with the Company and benefits therefrom. Only then they invested the amount in the scheme and also instigated other persons to invest their money in the scheme and also took an active part in the promotional seminars of that scheme too. Earlier, complainants earned huge profit from their investment, thereafter they themselves reinvested their amount in the scheme but in the second time, they suffered losses and wrongly lodged report against the applicants. The present applicant has no concern with the alleged investment of the complainants. Learned counsel further submitted that co- accused i.e. Seema Raikwar, Vinit Yadav, Subhash M. Salian, Harpreet Sahani against whom the allegations are similar in nature have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 29/07/2019, 05/11/2019, 03/12/2019 & 05/02/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.Nos.27294/2019, 38914/2019, 47831/2019 & 52570/2019 respectively. It is submitted that on the ground of parity also applicant is entitled tobe enlarged on bail. The applicant has been in custody since 07/09/2019. The charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant Rupesh Rai and co-accused Brajesh Rai by giving false assurance to complainants and other innocent investors that they would get guaranteed handsome return within a certain period (at the time of maturity) on purchasing that coin induced the complainants and other innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme and took crores of rupees from innocent investors and embezzled that amount. So, applicant should not be released on bail.
The case of the co-accused Seema Raikwar, Vinit Yadav, Subhash M. Signature Not Verified SAN Salian, Harpreet Sahani who have been granted bail by this Court is not Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.07.28 16:06:37 IST 3 MCRC-13643-2020 similar to the present applicant. The applicant is one of the main accused. It is alleged that applicant and co-accused Brajesh Raikwar who were the business head for the marketing of a cryptocurrency Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC) in India, by organizing seminars in hotels in many cities of India, publishing booklets and through the website assured complainants and other innocent investors that on purchasing the coin they would get guaranteed handsome returns within a certain period (at the time of maturity) thereby inducing the innocent investors to invest money in the scheme and took crores of rupees from innocent investors. In the case diary statement of the prosecution witnesses it is mentioned that the applicant took amount from them.
So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the enormity of fraud this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Hence, this application is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.07.28 16:06:37 IST