Madhya Pradesh High Court
Seema Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2019
1 M.Cr.C.No.27294 of 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Misc. Criminal Case No.27294/2019
Seema Raikwar
vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Alok Vagrecha, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Satyendra Jyotishi, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Reserved on : 25/07/2019 Delivered on : 29/07/2019 This is first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Seema Raikwar was arrested on 23/06/2019 in Crime No. 20/2018 registered at Police Station Police Station S.T.F., Bhopal, District- Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and under Section 66-D of the I.T. Act.
As per the prosecution case, co-accused Rupesh Rai and 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 and took crores of rupees from innocent investors. Thereafter under a pre-calibrated move, they started to lower Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2019.08.01 11:39:19 +05'30' 2 M.Cr.C.No.27294 of 2019 down the price of that coin and lastly at the time of maturity, the value of the coin became zero. Thus they committed fraud with the complainant and other innocent investors and embezzled their amount. Applicant Seema Rai who is the wife of co-accused Brajesh Rai is also involved in the crime. The money collected by the Brajesh Rai from the innocent investors was deposited in her bank accounts.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no allegation against the applicant that she induced the complainants and other innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme or herself took any amount from any of the investors. Only allegation against the applicant is that the husband of the applicant Brajesh Raikwar opened the accounts in the name of the applicant in which the amount was deposited. He further submits that the applicant is a lady and she is in custody since 23/06/2019 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that co-accused Rupesh Rai and 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 and the said amount was deposited in the bank accounts of the present applicant. She was also involved in the crime. So she should not be released on bail.
There is no allegation against the applicant that she induced the complainants and other innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme or herself took any amount from any of the investors. The accounts in which the alleged amount was deposited has already been seized by the police, so looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is a lady, she is in custody since 23/06/2019 and conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon her Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2019.08.01 11:39:32 +05'30' 3 M.Cr.C.No.27294 of 2019 furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for her appearance before the concerned Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the trial;
3. The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.
Certified copy as per rules (Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge vs Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2019.08.01 11:39:44 +05'30'