Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikaas Kadian vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 25 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 P AND H 1113
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-53194-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 25.2.2020
Vikaas Kadian ... Petitioner
Versus
State of UT Chandigarh ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Viren Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. P.P. UT., Chandigarh.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 124 dated 24.4.2018 under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station Sector-17, Chandigarh.
2. The FIR was registered at the instance of Amardeep Singh wherein it has been alleged that the accused namely Amit Bhardwaj, Ajay Bhardwaj, Ashish Dabas, Pankaj Adlakha, Rupesh Kumar Singh and Vikaas Kadian connived with each other to dupe the complainant and made him part with his hard earned money running into lacs by pursuading him to invest him in a Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) ponzi scheme Gainbitcoin, marketed by M/s Variable Tech, Singapore founded by Amit Bhardwaj. It is alleged that the complainant and other similarly situated persons were promised a 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2020 06:08:37 ::: 2 CRM-M-53194-2019 (O&M) lucrative return of 10 percent per month continuously for a period of 18 months on their investments made in said 'bitcoins' (crypto currency). The accused had assured the complainant that their company was an authorized miners of Bitcoins in India, having pan-India operations and that the entire business was legal. Thus, the complainant was induced to believe by the petitioner Vikaas Kadian and other accused that his investment would yield 180 per cent profit within 18 months from the date of investment. It is alleged that the accused Amit Bhardwaj gained the confidence of the complainant while representing that his companies were constantly doing Bitcoin mining and that he was CEO of M/s Amaze Mining and Block Chain Research Limited and GB Miners and had a majority stake in Mineral Mining Company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The accused further claimed to be India's first Bitcoin e-wallet called 'Coinbank'. Upon such assurances and representations made by accused including the petitioner, the complainant registered himself on the website of the accused through www.gainbitcoin.com and the complainants Amardeep Singh and Manoj Garg invested an amount of ` 30 lacs and ` 15.5. lacs for purchase of Bitcoins. However, the complainant did not receive any single Bitcoin (BTC) in return for their investment. It is further alleged that subsequently, the accued induced the complainant to invest in another crypto currency called M-CAP, which was in the nature of a mutual fund for crypto currencies, which according to the accused was likely to gain more popularity than Bitcoins and give much higher yields and financial gains. It is alleged that the accused then changed the contract conditions and further made the complainant invest further in one 'Lifelong Etherium Mining 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2020 06:08:37 ::: 3 CRM-M-53194-2019 (O&M) Contract' for at least 24 months, which was stated to get maximum returns but even the said promise did not materalize. The complainant, thus, alleged that he had been duped of huge amount by the accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that even a bare perusal of the FIR would show that it is Amit Bhardwaj who is the principal accused and that the petitioner is not stated to have been entrusted with any amount. It has further been submitted that since a co-accused namely Sanchit Allagh has already been granted bail vide order dated 17.9.2018 passed in CRM-M- 39721 of 2018, the petitioner also deserves the concession of bail on ground of parity.
4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is specifically named as one of the accused in FIR and infact there is also specific allegation against the petitioner that he had approached the complainant and had held out a representation that investing in Bitcoins was very lucrative and that in these circumstances, no special case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out, given the fact that it is a pan-India scam involving crores of rupees. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the order granting regular bail to Sanchit Allagh since he not only had offered to deposit an amount of ` 45,30,000/-, which was stated to have been received by him but was not even specifically named in the FIR unlike the present petitioner against whom there are direct allegations in the FIR itself. The learned State counsel has further submitted that in any case the conduct of the petitioner in having absconded and having been declared a proclaimed 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2020 06:08:37 ::: 4 CRM-M-53194-2019 (O&M) offender by the trial Court disentitles him to grant of bail, especially in view of ratio of judgment reported as 2015(3) RCR (Criminal) 274 Iqbal Singh Sabharwal Veresus State of Punjab and another.
5. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. A perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR wherein there are specific allegations to the effect that the petitioner as well as other accused held out a representation to the complainant of huge returns on their investments in Bitcoin, which infact was a false representation inasmuch as the complainant was neither returned the invested amount, nor given the alleged huge returns. During the course of investigation, it has been found that the Bitcoin scam is a Pan-India scam wherein innocent gullible investors have been deprived of their hard earned savings amounting to ` 2,100 crores. In Chandigarh alone, the investors have been deprived of an amount of ` 6 crores.
6. Given the enormity of the scam, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is duly warranted. In any case, the conduct of the petitioner leading to his being declared as proclaimed offender would disentitle him for grant of concession of anticipatory bail. The petitioner cannot seek any advantage from order dated 17.9.2018, passed in the case of co-accused Sanchit Allagh since apart from the fact that the said Sanchit Allagh is not named in the FIR, the said order pertains to grant of regular bail wherein the said Sanchit Allagh had already joined investigation, whereas the petitioner who is proclaimed offender seeks anticipatory bail.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2020 06:08:37 ::: 5 CRM-M-53194-2019 (O&M)
7. In view of the discussion made above, this Court does not find any special case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition is sans any merits and is hereby dismised.
8. It is, however, clarified that none of the observations made above shall be taken to be an expression on merits of the main case.
25.2.2020 (Gurvinder Singh Gill)
kamal Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2020 06:08:37 :::