Himachal Pradesh High Court
Cr. Mp (M) No. 1314/2024 A/W vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 August, 2024
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr. MP (M) No. 1314/2024 a/w Cr. MPs(M) No. 1315 & 1316/2024 Reserved: 09.08.2024 Decided on: 24.08.2024 ___________________________________________________ (1) Cr. MP(M) No. 1314/2024 Hem Raj ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent (2) Cr. MP(M) No. 1315 of 2024 Sukh Dev ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent (3) Cr. MP(M) No. 1316 of 2024 Abhishek Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
__________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Arjun Lall and Mr. Aslam, Advocates.
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS2 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) For the respondent : Mr. Raj Negi and Ms. Niyati Thakur, Deputy Advocates .
General.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge Since all these petitions arise out of FIR No. 120/2023 dated 24.09.2023, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. By way of instant petitions, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners are seeking bail in case FIR No. 120/2023, dated 24.09.2023, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), read with Section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and Sections 21 & 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.
3. The prosecution story, as per the status report, in brief, is that on 24.09.2023, a complaint was received at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. against accused Subhash Sharma, Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur, Abhishek Sharma and Milan Garg, wherein, it was stated that many persons had ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 3 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) invested their money through website www.voscrow.io on the .
advice of the above named accused persons. The owners of the website were accused Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg. In exchange for the investment, the virtual currency was given to the persons on the website. However, accused Subhash Sharma, promoter Sukhdev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma had cheated the general public through websites Voscrow & Hypenext, as in the year 2019-2020, the above named persons kept on promising to double the person's invested money, which continued till the year 2021. During this period, some persons received return on the funds invested by them and many persons followed and made investments in the scheme, but after 25th December, 2021, allocation of fund/return was stopped by accused Subhash Sharma. Subsequently, he assured the persons that they would start the distribution of return soon and announced a tie up with the Hypenext Company, which was owned by accused Milan Garg.
Thereafter, he started asking persons to invest in Hypenext and many persons trusted his words and invested again. During that period, some people got return on their investments, which ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 4 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) continued till the year 2022. However, later on, accused .
Subhash Sharma informed that the company could not make the returns due to some technical problems and asked for some time to start the payment again. The accused persons again acknowledged the pending refund of 18 Crores and assured to activate ID's on Aglobal.io by 08.08.2023. However, till date the persons did not receive any return on their investments in the scheme. As per the complainant, the accused persons in connivance with one another and by developing fake websites and by showing fake coins, have embezzled huge amount. After the registration of FIR, the investigation commenced and during the course of investigation, the present petitioners were arrested on 02.10.2023 and 28.10.2023, respectively.
4. The bail applications have been filed by the petitioners on the ground that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the investigation in the case qua the petitioners is complete and no recovery is to be effected from them. They further contended that petitioners Hem Raj and Sukhdev are in custody since 02.10.2023 and petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 5 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) Abhishek Sharma is in custody since 28.10.2023 and the .
charge-sheet qua them has already been filed before the learned designated Court, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, as trial is not going to be completed in near future.
5. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail as they have been found involved in a serious economic offence of huge magnitude, so at this stage, in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.
6. I have given my considered thought to the rival contentions raised and also gone through the police file as well as the status report filed by the prosecution. As per the status report, the petitioners are accused of economic offences of huge magnitude. The perusal of the record reveals that the investigation qua the petitioners is complete and charge sheet has been filed against them before the learned designated Court on 28.11.2023, which details out the role of the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS6 ( 2024:HHC:7345 )
7. Economic offences are considered grave offences .
as it affects the economy of the country as a whole and such offences having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund are to be viewed seriously. Economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications.
8. No doubt at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on merits of the case need not be taken but the order must reflect the reasons for arriving at a prima facie conclusion as to why bail is being granted particularly when the accused-petitioner is charged with economic offences.
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS7 ( 2024:HHC:7345 )
9. The law relating to bail in a case of economic offences .
is more or less settled in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It would be useful at this point to give a conspectus of the law and the principles for grant of bail in case of economic offences. Extracts from some of the most relevant and topical judgments on this point are set-out in the paragraphs that follow. r
10. In the case of State of Gujrat vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal reported in AIR 1987 SC 1321, it is held as follows:-
"5. xx xx xx The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white colour crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest".
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 in paras 34 and 35 in respect of granting bail in economic offences having deep ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 8 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) rooted conspiracy and large public money involved, has held as .
under:-
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."
12. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 the Supreme Court has observed that the alarming rise in white collar crimes has affected the fiber of country's economic structure. Economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole.
Economic offences constitute a class apart and a different approach has to be adopted in the matter of bail. Para 23 to 25 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure.::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS
9 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a .
whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."
24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence"
which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS10 ( 2024:HHC:7345 )
13. In a judgment rendered in the case of State of .
Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, it has been held that while considering the bail involving socio-economic offences stringent parameters should be applied. Paras 8-9 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:-
""8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar.
9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved in tampering with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with the examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination, 2016 and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and other students of Vishnu Rai College, in the said examination. During the investigation when a search team raided his place, various documents relating to property and land to the tune of Rs 2.57 crores were recovered besides Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of various students, letterheads and rubber stamps of several authorities, admit cards, illegal firearm, etc. were found which Page No.# 7/10 establishes a prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of the State of Bihar."::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS
11 ( 2024:HHC:7345 )
14. In a recent decision in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant .
Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai. This court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal as under:--
"5... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest..."::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS
12 ( 2024:HHC:7345 )
15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions rendered by .
the Hon'ble Apoex Court, it is evident that while granting bail in cases involving grave economic offences, discretion should be used in a proper and judicious manner. The Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction would entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations.
16. In the instant case, as per the status report, during investigation it was found that the main accused Subhash Sharma systematically incorporated trial based IDs into the innovative Korvio Software. Initially, he introduced the petitioners Hemraj and Sukhdev to this dynamic platform and then Sukhdev introduced petitioner Asbhishek Sharma to this platform. On 11.08.2013, Abhishek Sharma officially registered on the Multi Level Marketing Software with ID 174152 and thereafter, Hemraj and Sukhdev joined the Korvio Software with IDs 365479 and ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 13 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) 839783, respectively. This detailed account illuminates the .
systemic development and implementation of the crypto based multi leval marketing software by Subhash Sharma and his team including the petitioners. The investigation brought to light a manipulative pattern employed by the petitioners, who orchestrated gatherings in different locations such as Mandi, Kullu, Baddi, Chandigarh, Una, Hamirpur, Palampur etc. During these events, the petitioners took center stage, managing and anchoring programs, where they delivered speeches rife with fabricated and exaggerated content. The petitioners went to great length to assert that the the price of the Korvio Coin was organically increasing based on demand. However, in reality, they manipulated the price according to their whims. They falsely asserted that once the coin reached a certain threshold, its value would never drop below $ 10. The investigation further revealed that exploiting the trust of depositors, the petitioners encouraged them to bring in family, friends and associate them into Korvio Coin Scheme. Furthermore, when investors sought withdrawals for the coins they held, the petitioners devised a deceptive strategy. They instructed investors to activate new IDs ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 14 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) by using their coins and to collect cash from these new joiners .
against the coins utilized for the activation of those IDs. This calculated misdirection perpetuated the fraudulent scheme, furthering the financial harm inflicted upon unsuspecting investors. On 16.08.2021, the petitioners made a significant announcement regarding the closure of the Korvio Coin associated with Voscrow Company. They revealed that all the coins assets, previously held by investors under the name Korvio were being transferred to a new company named DGT.
Simultaneously, the petitioners introduced a novel plan enticing investors to stake the newly introduced coin, DGT. According to this plan, investors were promised a doubling of their staked coins within a year, with coins initially staked at the prevailing rate of $ 10. The petitioners orchestrated a deliberate reduction in the price of the DGT Coin, brining it down to less than $ 2.
This maneuver, executed by the petitioners was done with a clandestine agreement. By collecting proceeds from investors at the rate of $ 10 and subsequently reducing the coin's value to a mere 10 paise, they sought to exploit the significant difference, thereby depriving unsuspecting investors of their hard earned ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 15 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) money. This intentional and deceptive manipulation left the .
general public, more particularly, the investors, severely deceived and financially harmed. The petitioners orchestrated multiple gatherings across Himachal Pradesh and other locations, where they gathered individuals under their influence and sway. During the aforesaid gatherings, they urged attendees to invest in DGT coins, emphasizing the potential for lucrative returns and assuring them that the coin's value would surge. Encouraged by these promises, the public under the influence of the petitioners, enthusiastically purchased DGT coins, some even resorting to acquiring loans for this purpose.
However, despite promises, the petitioners intentionally manipulated the price of DGT coin, causing it to plummet from 25 to 15 and eventually to less than 10 paise. This deliberate action resulted in a significant financial setback for those who had invested, further highlighting the deceitful practices employed by the accused to the detriment of unsuspecting individuals. The investors brought to light the intricate financial dealings of the petitioners and their associates involved in an elaborate Ponzi scheme. The substantial gains of petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 16 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) Hemraj were invested in acquiring valuable assets i.e. eleven .
properties owned Zirakpur, Punjab, H.P. Tata Hitachi 210 Model Excavator/Poclain and a Mercedes Benz. On the other hand, the wealth of Sukhdev was apparent in seven properties across Himachal and Punjab, including a Nexon car. Whereas, the substantial holdings of Abhishek Sharma, valued at around 80 lacs rupees. A meticulous examination of financial transactions provided crucial insights into the movement of funds associated with the fraudulent schemes.
17. The investigation prima facie reveals that thousands of investors have fallen victims to this fraudulent scheme, as more than 80,000/- investors have contributed over the past four years with a total investment of around Rs. 2,000/- crores and there is an estimated loss of Rs. 500/- crores to the investors.
Furthermore, the investigation reveals that the petitioners are the close associates of the main accused Subhash Sharma and they are the top liners in the chain. They have lured many people in the State and other parts of the country into the scheme. The investigation is still going on and some of the top liners including the main accused Subhash Sharma have ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 17 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) absconded and moved out of India. Hence, considering the .
allegations levelled against the accused/petitioners, the nature of economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracy involving huge loss of public funds coupled with the fact that the investigation is still going on, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that some of the identically placed co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioners may also be released on bail.
19. However, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been submitted that case of the petitioners is not identically placed with co-accused persons as is being claimed by learned counsel for the petitioners.
20. It is a settled law that parity cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail. It is one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail. There is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-accused, where ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 18 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) another co- accused has been granted bail. Before considering .
the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, a brief recapitulation of the law on the aspect of parity may be apposite.
In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court cannot exercise it powers in a capricious manner and before granting bail on the ground of parity, the Court must focus upon the role of the accused and his position in relation to the incident and victims is also of utmost importance. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:-
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS
19 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind.
.
That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge- sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-
15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused.
Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law. "
21. Similar reiteration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be found in Tarun Kumar's case (supra) wherein it has been held that parity is not the law, rather the principle of ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 20 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law .
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:
"18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration....................."
19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision."
22. Tested on the touch stone of above principles, the petitioners' submission premised on the ground of parity, is found to be devoid of merit. The perusal of record prima facie reveals that the petitioners are the kingpins of ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS 21 ( 2024:HHC:7345 ) the scheme, whereas the co-accused persons who have been .
enlarged on bail, are merely investors. After going through the allegations as leveled against the co-accused persons who have been released on bail vis-à-vis allegations against the petitioners, this court finds that the petitioners stand on a different footing and therefore the principle of parity for grant of bail would not be applicable to them. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the co-accused persons for grant of bail.
23. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, the nature of accusations, the punishment prescribed for the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted, prima facie the role played by the petitioners in the entire episode, the impact of such economic offences on the society particularly on the common man who have been allured to make investments, merely because some of the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, this court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail at this stage in the larger interests of public and State,. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the relief is to be granted to the petitioners showing the principle of parity.
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS22 ( 2024:HHC:7345 )
24. Consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, .
the bail applications filed by the petitioners are dismissed.
25. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.
r ( Sushil Kukreja )
August 24, 2024 Judge
(raman)
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:41 :::CIS