Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Of on 3 December, 2025
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
( 2025:HHC:41619 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MP (M) No. 2264 of 2025
Reserved on: 04.11.2025
Decided on: 03.12.2025
Vijay Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram rt
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Chauhan & Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General.
____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short "BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 120 of 2023, dated 24.09.2023, under Sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), read with Section 59 of the HP Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 2
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that on the basis of written complaint made by one Shri Arun Singh .
Guleria (complainant) on 24.09.2023, a case was registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, HP. It was alleged in the said complaint that a group of individuals, including Subhash Sharma, Hem Raj, Sukhdev (residents of Mandi), Abhishek Sharma (resident of Una), of and Milan Garg, (resident of Meerut, UP), were engaged in fraudulent activities related to crypto-currency H.P. On the advice of accused rt Subhash Sharma, the complainant alongwith others had invested in a website, i.e., www.voscrow.io, which was owned by accused Subhash Sharma alongwith Milan Garg and in lieu of their investments, virtual currency was provided through the website. Accused Subhash Sharma alongwith promoters Sukh Dev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma, allegedly cheated the general public through websites, like Voscrow and Hypenext. During the period between 2019-2020, the aforesaid persons promised the individuals to double their money and such promises continued till 2021 and during that period, some individuals received distributions of funds against their investments, which led to increase in the investments, resultantly many people invested. On 25.12.2021, the allocations were halted by Subhash Sharma and later on, he assured that the allocations would resume soon. Subsequently, Subhash Sharma tied-up with Hypenext, which was owned by Milan ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 3 Garg and on being persuaded, the people invested/reinvested in Hypenext again and they also received partial funds against their .
investments, which practice continued till 2022. Thereafter, due to technical issues, the company requested five months' time for payment qua which, through a video, Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg informed the entire community. In total, the amount involved was Rs.18 Crores of and they acknowledged and promised to activate new IDs on 8 th August, 2023 at Aglobal.io, however, neither his (complainant) rt community, nor he received any money. Hence, it was alleged that Milan Garg, Subhash Sharma, Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma defrauded the people by creating fake website and it was a well-planned conspiracy.
3. As per the FIR, the accused persons were involved in fraudulent activities related to crypto-currency and they enticed the people to invest substantial amount(s), promising high returns, which resulted in a collective loss of Rs.18 crores to the complainant and his associates. On 26.09.2023 a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted, which was headed by DIG of Northern Range, Dharamshala, for investigating various crypto-currency related 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 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 4 investors, who recruited others, manipulating crypto-currency prices and ultimately causing financial loss to the victims. It was further .
unearthed that the accused persons used a combination of misinformation, deception and threats to maintain control over their scheme and continued extracting money from unsuspecting investors.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that of the petitioner has no role in the instant case and a false case has been foisted against him. He further contended that in the instant case rt the Investigating Agency had arrested as many as 74 person and them as accused on the statement of the complainant and other depositors who allegedly were allured by Subhash Sharma, Milan Garg, Abhishek Sharma, Sukh Dev Thakur and Hem Raj, who were the masterminds behind the alleged fraud. However, no depositor had ever named the petitioner to be involved in the crypto currency or stated that he allured the depositors to invest money in the aforesaid scheme being run by the aforesaid five persons. He also contended that since some of the properties were jointly purchased in their respective shares by some of the above said persons and by Subhash Sharma with the petitioner, the said Subhash Sharma, in order to secure his properties and to change the line of investigation suffered a confession to the Investigating Agency thereby giving details of the properties purchased jointly by him with the petitioner. Moreover, in his confession, he nowhere alleged ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 5 that the petitioner was involved in the business of crypto currency.
Lastly, he contended that all the other co-accused in the present case .
except Hem Raj, Milan Garg, Sukh Dev and Abhishek have been released on bail, as such, the petitioner also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period.
of
5. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail rt as he has been found involved in a serious economic offence of huge magnitude, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.
He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.
6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also carefully gone through the material available on record.
7. The law with respect to the grant or refusal of bail is well settled. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 6 punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the .
grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable of ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the rt accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. In Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2004) 7 SCC 525, the Apex Court has laid down requisite factors for consideration of bail i.e.,
(i) nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
8. In the case on hand, the perusal of the record prima facie revealed that Vijay Kumar Juneja (petitioner herein) came in contact with accused Subhash Sharma when Subhash Sharma was operating a cryptocurrency based multi level marketing scheme. Accused Subhash Sharma after being impressed by Vijay Kumar Juneja's proposal to invest money in real estate, started instructing his core ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 7 team members namely Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur, Abhishek Verma, Vipin, Govind Goswami, Vishal Verma and Sanjay Saklani to deposit .
the cash collected from the investors at Juneja Square, Zirakpur.
Subsequently, the team members regularly delivered large amounts of cash at Juneja Square. The cash handed over at Juneja Square was neither documented nor routed through legal banking channels. Later of on, it was found that this cash was used by Vijay Kumar Juneja to purchase real estate properties. During the course of further rt investigation, statement of Suresh Kumar was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., wherein, he stated that in the year 2020, he had invested Rs. 3.75 lakhs in the Korvio scheme through one Harsh Thakur. Later, he actively started working under the scheme and added many persons below him. Most of the money collected from the investors was in cash, which was deposited at Juneja Square, Zirakpur. He further stated that during his involvement in Korvio, he personally delivered cash amounting to approximately Rs. 1 Crore at Juneja Square. During further investigation, statement of Smt. Pavna Kumari was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and she produced original documents pertaining to the case, including Memorandum of Understanding, dated 30.07.2020, executed between her husband Hemraj and Masoom Juneja, son of the present petitioner. As per said document, Hemraj held a 10% ownership share in Juneja Square, Zirakpur. She also ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 8 submitted a copy of an agreement executed between V.L. Builders and Subhash Sharma, which indicated that Subhash Sharma also held a .
10% share in Juneja Square. She further stated that in the year 2022, Vijay Kumar Juneja informed her husband about one acre piece of land in Zirakpur, owned by one Colonel Paramjeet, which was available for sale at a reasonable price. On this assurance, her husband Hemraj of handed over Rs. 1.11 Crore in cash at Juneja Square, out of which, Rs.
25 lakhs were deposited in Colonel Paramjeet's bank account. Vijay rt Kumar Juneja later informed them that the agreement had been finalized. Thereafter, Hemraj gave another sum of Rs. 06 crores in cash for the purchase of the said land. This witness stated that she accompanied her husband to Zirakpur at the time of this transaction.
After the arrest of Hemraj, the petitioner got two acres of land registered in the names of himself and his family members. Although the agreement value was Rs.11 crores, the land was registered for Rs.
4.5 crores. The amount of Rs. 25 lakhs earlier paid to the Colonel was adjusted, and the remaining consideration was paid to him in cash.
9. Investigation further revealed that, during the process of identifying properties under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act), the role of the petitioner came to light.
It was found that he had jointly purchased lands with Subhash Sharma and had also opened multiple joint bank accounts with him.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 9 Accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner to join the investigation. However, instead of appearing, he approached the High .
Court of Himachal Pradesh and a direction was issued that the investigating agency intended to arrest the petitioner, a prior notice of such arrest must be given to him. In compliance to aforesaid directions, a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued and shared with all international of airports to ensure that the petitioner could not leave the country.
Subsequently, the
rt petitioner was detained at Indira Gandhi
International Airport, New Delhi, while he was attempting to travel to Dubai. During investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioner had started his real estate business in the year, 2003. However, until 2018, his banking transactions did not reflect significant earnings to support the large scale acquisition of properties made later. The bank accounts of the petitioner and his family members, namely Mayank Juneja and Masoom Juneja were analyzed for the period 2014 to 2017 and it was revealed that across three accounts, the combined deposits were Rs.
1,89,06,940/- and withdrawals were Rs. 1,86,27,385/-. The details of said accounts are under:-
Sr. A/c No. A/c Holder Duration of deposits Withdrawals Bank No. name transaction name
1. 916010007059 Vijay Kumar 22.04.2016 Rs.1,54,90, Rs.1,52,12,732/ Axis 04 Juneja to 037/- - bank 31.12.2017 Zirakpur
2. 50701506394 Mayank Juneja 19.03.2021 Rs.20,69,7 Rs.50,65,205/- ICICI to 10/- bank 30.12.2017 Zirakpur ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 10
3. 501000152399 Masoom 14.03.2014 Rs.13,47,1 Rs.13,49,448/- HDFC 52 Juneja to 93/- bank 31.12.2017 Zirakpur .
10. In the year 2018, the petitioner opened multiple bank accounts in the names of his sons and several joint accounts with accused Subhash Sharma and Hemraj. In addition to above, accounts of were also opened in the names of his employees, namely Jagdish and Rajat and the petitioner deposited significant amounts into the bank rt accounts opened in the names of his employees, Rajat Nayyer and Jagdish Kumar and huge amounts were deposited and withdrawn from the said accounts. The details of said accounts are under:-
Sr. A/c No. A/c Holder Duration of deposits Withdrawals Bank No name transaction name
1. 50705500333 VL Builders 01.05.2024 Rs.2,92,85,453/- Rs.3,22,92,416/- ICICI to bank 09.08.2024 Zirakpur
2. 50705500596 SVL 01.07.2024 - - ICICI Realtors to bank 31.07.2024 Zirakpur
3. 1563400002184 Subhash 07.03.2022 Rs. 58,50,000/- Rs. 58,48,261/- Yes bank Sharma, to Sector 9 Mayank 13.10.2023 chandiga Juneja, rh Hemraj, Sukhdev
4. 9160100040594 Vijay 22.04.2016 Rs. Rs. Axis bank 04 Kumar to 14,09,85,157/- 14,09,76,014/- Zirakpur Juneja, co- 30.07.2024 holder Roshan Lal
5. 7847626684 Rajat 20.12.2022 Rs. 1,19,360/- Rs. 1,19,360/- Kotal Nayyer to Mahindra 20.08.2024 Bank Panchkul a
6. 9216730000 Vijay 03.06.2022 Rs.2,50,16,543/- Rs.2,48,76,000/- Kotak Juneja and to Mahindra Subhash 01.08.2023 Bank ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 11 Sharma Panchkul a
7. 50701506393 Suman 29.09.2020 Rs.5,75,40,232/- Rs.5,80,61,955/- ICICI .
Juneja w/o to bank
Vijay 26.07.2024 Zirakpur
Juneja
8. 1585800008671 Subhash 13.08.2021 Rs.1,99,684/- Rs.1,95,012/- Yes bank
Sharma to Sector 9
and 30.07.2024 Chandigar
Mayank h
Juneja
9. 50701003073 Jagdish 17.10.2022 Rs.2,97,40,307/- Rs.2,97,40,302/- ICICI
of
Kumar to bank
30.06.2024 Zirakpur
10. 507015063594 Mayank 19.03.2016 Rs.1,99,82,721/- Rs.1,93,86,356/- ICICI
Juneja to bank
rt 05.10.2020 Zirakpur
11. 50705500556 Vijay 01.05.2024 Rs.4,36,06,000/- Rs.4,34,18,376/- ICICI
Juneja to bank
23.07.2024 Zirakpur
12. 5010001523995 Masoom 14.03.2014 Rs.23,01,089/- Rs.23,10,089/- HDFC
2 Juneja to bank
10.04.2024 Zirakpur
13. 309056211111 Rajat 07.09.2023 Rs.10,15,403/- Rs.10,15,353/- RBL bank
Nayyer to Zirakpur
18.08.2024
14. 1455200000469 Rajat 18.03.2023 Rs.15,28,666/- Rs.17,27,751/- Yes bank
4 Nayyer to Zirakpur
21.08.2024
15. 50701003195 Vijay 31.12.2022 Rs.13,56,52,367/ Rs.13,56,44,338 ICICI
Juneja to - /- bank
25.07.2024 Zirakpur
Grand Total Rs.51,19,26,982/ Rs.51,47,10,583
- /-
11. On 03.09.2024, one Ashok Kumar Singla came to the office of Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Dharamshala and produced certified copies of revenue records and sale deeds obtained from the competent Courts and it was found that the records pertaining to the sale of plots illegally executed by the petitioner in violation of joint ownership rights and court directions. The following ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 12 sale deeds were executed by the petitioner after issuance of freezing order:
.
(a) Sale Deed No. 8702, dated 15.11.2023 (1 plot)
(b) Sale Deed No. 8703, dated 15.11.2023 (1 plot)
(c) Sale Deed No. 8704, dated 15.11.2023 (2 plots)
(d) Sale Deed No. 8705, dated 15.11.2023 (2 plots) of
(e) Sale Deed No. 8706, dated 15.11.2023 (2 plots)
(f) Sale Deed No. 11254, dated 25.01.2024 (2 plots) rt
(g) Sale Deed No. 11255, dated 25.01.2024 (2 plots)
(h) Sale Deed No. 11256, dated 25.01.2024 (3 plots)
12. It was further revealed that Vijay Kumar Juneja, alongwith Masoom Juneja is the owner of a commercial property known as "Juneja Square", situated at Village Nabha, Sub-tehsil Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab. The property is registered in the name of V.L. Builders through Vijay Kumar Juneja and Masoom Juneja. The details of the said property are as under:
"Khata No. 153, Khatoni No. 191, Khasra Nos. 3031/490 (through Masoom Juneja) and 490/2, 493/2 (through Vijay Kumar Juneja), total land area 806.00 square yards."
13. Investigation further revealed that after disclosure statement of Subhash Sharma, certain agreements were recovered, which indicated that Vijay Kumar Juneja had entered into a 10% share agreement for "Juneja Square" with Subhash Sharma and Hemraj.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 13 However, later, he manipulated the transactions and transferred the property entirely into his own name, thereby holding it as benami .
property. Though, the approximate value of this property was estimated at Rs. 2 crores by Vijay Juneja during his examination, however, he could not produce any documents or investment records related to the purchase of "Juneja Square". Consequently, valuation of the property of was conducted through an approved valuer and it was found that total market value of the property was assessed at Rs. 4,75,90,000/- as of rt 10.04.2025.
14. Investigation further revealed that the petitioner alongwith his associates is joint owner of a large parcel of land situated at Village Nabha, Sub-tehsil Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, which was jointly purchased by Mayank Juneja and other associates, including accused Sukhdev, Subhash Sharma, Paras Ram Sen and Hem Raj. The details of the said property are as under:
"Khata No. 135, Khatoni No. 172, Khasra Nos. 80(measuring 4-0 bighas), 1140/78 (measuring 3-2 bighas), kita 2 (total measuring 07-02-00 bighas; 110/142 share, equivalent to 05-10-00 bighas), Khasra No. 1095/79 (measuring 0-10-00 bighas, kita 1, Khata No. 142, Khatauni No. 179, Khasra Nos. 90 (measuring 2-0 bighas), 92 (measuring 4-0 bighas), kita 2 (total measuring 06-00- 00 bighas).
Total land area: 11-08-00 bighas, approximately 11,491 square yards."
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 14 Out of the aforesaid property, 43% share was sold by the petitioner, which had been originally purchased in the name of his son, .
Mayank Juneja and the market value of the land, as assessed during the investigation, has been determined to be Rs. 17,23,65,000/-.
15. During investigation it was also found that the petitioner alongwith Subhash Sharma and Masoom Juneja is the joint owner of a of substantial land parcel situated at Village Nabha, Sub-tehsil Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, the details whereof are as under:
rt "Khasra Nos. 995/386 (2-10 bighas), 387 (4-0 bighas), 388 (1-10 bighas), 389 (4-0 bighas), 424 (4-0 bighas) and 425/1 (1-15 bighas), kita 6, land measuring a total of 17- 15-00 bighas."
Total area of land is approximately 17-00-00 (approximately 17,136 square yards.
Valuation of the property is Rs. 25,70,40,000/-"
16. On 22.12.2021, the petitioner alongwith Subhash Sharma, Romita Kashyap and Masoom Juneja, jointly purchased studio apartments from Gurdev Singh. The said property is located at Plot No. 34, VIP Enclave, VIP Road, Village Bishanpur, Sub-tehsil Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab. The details of the said property are as under:
"Khewat/Khatauni No. 14/14, Khasra No. 301, total land area; 4 bighas and 10 biswas."
17. Thus, from the investigation, prima facie, it is evident that the petitioner is involved in the economic offences of huge magnitude.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 15 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 of granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an rt 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.
18. In the instant case, the investigation prima facie reveals that the petitioner Vijay Kumar Juneja had been actively managing the cash collected from the victims of the crypto currency fraud and he has invested this cash into various properties, most of which were acquired jointly with other co-accused persons. As per the prosecution, there is strong evidence against the petitioner that the substantial gains worth crores of rupees, which were acquired through the fraudulent scheme of crypto currency by accused Subhash Sharma and other accused persons, i.e., Hemraj, Sukhdev, Abhishek Sharma and Milan Garg etc., were invested in acquiring the valuable assets, i.e., movable and immovable properties at different places through the present petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 16 Therefore, in the opinion of this court, as the petitioner is prima facie alleged to be involved in the economic offences of huge magnitude, he .
cannot be released on bail.
19. 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 of and the principles for grant of bail in case of economic offences.
Extracts from some of the most relevant and topical judgments on this rt point are set-out in the paragraphs that follow.
20. 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".
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 in paras 34 and 35 in ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 17 respect of granting bail in economic offences having deep 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 of 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 rt 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."
22. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, the Hon'ble 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. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 18 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 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 rt 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 - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 19
23. 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 of 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 rt 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."
24. 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:
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 20 "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. of 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 rt 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..."
25. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the petitioner is a senior citizen having number of age related ailments including the heart ailment and during custody, the petitioner was taken to IGMC, Shimla, as he had faced breathing problem as well as developed symptoms related to his heart ailment. However, at this stage, no case has been made out by the petitioner to release him on ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 21 bail on medical grounds and there is nothing on record that the requisite medical facilities cannot be provided by the jail authorities. It is .
settled law that in the absence of compelling reasons warranting grant of bail on medical grounds, the Courts shall not exercise their discretion in granting bail to the accused. Exercise of discretion depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the thumb rule essentially is of the nature of the sickness, health condition as well as availability of specialized and sustained medical treatment to the inmates confined rt within the four walls of the jail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments held that where an individual seeks bail on medical grounds, it shall be granted only in cases where the requisite medical facilities cannot be provided by the jail authorities. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State Vs. Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, AIR 2020 SC 5014. The discretion vested in Courts to grant bail on medical grounds should be exercised in a sparing and cautious manner and every nature of sickness will not entitle the accused to be released on bail unless it is demonstrated that the sickness is of such a nature that if the accused is not released, he cannot get proper treatment
26. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 22 upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, as the trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future and keeping in view the fact .
that the petitioner is behind the bars since 17.03.2025, he deserves to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period.
27. Although, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees of speedy trial and an under trial prisoner cannot be detained in jail/custody for an indefinite period, but, mere period of incarceration or rt the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, as the petitioner is prima facie found involved in an economic offence of huge magnitude. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and another, (2019) 9 SCC 165 the Supreme Court has held that stringent view should be taken by the Court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences. Paragraphs 24 is extracted hereunder:-
" 24. At this juncture, it must be noted that even as per Section 212(7) of the Companies Act, the limitation under Section 212(6) with respect to grant of bail is in addition to those already provided in CrPC. Thus, it is necessary to advert to the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC. Specifically, heed must be paid to the stringent view taken by this Court towards grant of bail with respect of economic offences. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the following observations of this Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) "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 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 23 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."
of This Court has adopted this position in several decisions, including Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement [Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 603] and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar [State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 771] . Thus, it is evident that the above factors must be taken into account while determining rt whether bail should be granted in cases involving grave economic offences.
28. The Supreme Court in the case reported in Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2007) 1 SCC 242 has held that when the gravity of offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
"16............................ It is true that when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail."
(Emphasis supplied)
29. In the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 the Supreme Court has reiterated that where there is seriousness of the offence, the mere ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 24 fact that the accused is languishing in jail during trial should not be the concern of the courts. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment .
reads as under:-
"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 of 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."
30. rt 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:-
"21. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial is likely to take long time and the appellant would be incarcerated for indefinite period, is also not well founded in view of the observations made by this Court in case of Vijay Madanlal (supra). On the application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it has been categorically held therein that: -
"419. Section 436A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome beneficial provision, which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, the accused ought not to be detained further. Indeed, Section 436A of the 1973 Code also contemplates that the relief under this provision cannot be granted mechanically. It is still within the discretion of the Court, unlike the default bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Under Section 436A of the 1973 Code, however, the Court is required to consider the relief on case-to-case basis. As the proviso therein itself recognises that, in a given case, the detention can be continued by the Court even longer than one-half of the period, for which, reasons are to be recorded by it in writing and also by imposing such terms and conditions so as to ensure that after release, the accused makes himself/herself available for expeditious completion of the trial."::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 25
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), of 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 rt 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...."
31. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another) has held that three years incarceration would not itself entitle the accused-applicant to be released on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likelihood to be concluded in near future would be sufficient for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail considering the gravity of offence. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder:-
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 26 "14. We have already noticed from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the present accused had earlier made seven applications for grant of bail which were rejected by the High Court .
and some such rejections have been affirmed by this Court also. It is seen from the records that when the fifth application for grant of bail was allowed by the High Court, the same was challenged before this Court and this Court accepted the said challenge by allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India and another and cancelled the bail granted by the High Court as per the order of this Court made in Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2001 dated 25-7-2001 [Rajesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 222] . While cancelling the said bail this Court specifically held that the fact that the present accused was in of custody for more than one year (at that time) and the further fact that while rejecting an earlier application, the High Court had given liberty to renew the bail application in future, were not grounds envisaged under Section 437(1)(i) of the Code. This Court also in specific terms held that the condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the rt impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."
32. Thus when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere long incarceration in jail as under-trial is not sufficient ground to enlarge an accused on bail if the facts & circumstances of the case and interest of the society do not warrant for enlarging the accused-
applicant on bail. The present is an economic offence. The economic offences are considered grave offences as they affect the economy of the country and such offences are to be viewed seriously. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 27 alia, the larger interest of public and the State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are .
always important considerations in such cases.
33. Thus, in view of the above stated authoritative pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court, considering the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in commission of the of economic offence of huge magnitude in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, merely because of the fact that the petitioner is in custody rt since 17.03.2025, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge him on bail at this stage. Moreover, at this stage, in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice as the main accused Subhash Sharma has absconded and fled to Dubai.
34. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
35. Before parting with this order, it is hereby clarified that the aforesaid observations made in this order have been made only for the purpose of considering the present bail application. Therefore, the same shall not come in the way of the trial court at the time of the trial and the trial Court concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 3rd December, 2025 (raman) ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:41619 ) 28 .
of rt ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:16:31 :::CIS