Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-49193-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-49193-2019
(ANURAG AGRAWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-01-2020
Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Satyendra Jyotish, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Anurag Agrawal was arrested on 29/08/2019 in connection with Crime No.20/2018 registered at Police Station S.T.F., Bhopal, District- Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC and 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, in connivance with the applicant and other co-accused persons by organizing seminars in hotels in many cities of India, publishing booklets and through the website assured innocent investors that on purchasing the coin, they would get guaranteed handsome returns within a certain period (at the time of maturity) thereby inducing the innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme and took crores of rupees from innocent investors. Thereafter, under a pre-calibrated move, they started to lower down the price of that coin and lastly at the time of maturity, the value of the coin became zero. Thus, applicant and co-accused persons committed fraud with the innocent investors and embezzled their amount.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant never instigated any persons to invest the amount in Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC). On the contrary, the applicant himself had invested his money in Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC) and suffered a huge loss. Applicant himself was cheated by the co-accused. Although, it is alleged that the Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 29/01/2020 17:31:37 2 MCRC-49193-2019 applicant took an active part in the seminars organized by co-accused Rupesh Rai and Brajesh Raikwar and instigated other persons to invest their money in the scheme and some of the investors deposited amount in the applicant's account, but the same was deposited by the applicant in the account of co- accused Brajesh Raikwar. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant took any money or get benefit from the amount collected by co- accused Rupesh Rai and Brajesh Raikwar from the innocent investors. Co- accused Vineet Yadav against whom the allegations are similar in nature has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05/11/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 38914/2019. The applicant is in custody since 29/08/2019. The charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of the trial will take time hence, prayed for the release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant and co-accused Rupesh Rai and Brajesh Raikwar by giving false assurance to the innocent investors that they would get guaranteed handsome return within a certain period (at the time of maturity) on purchasing that coin induced the innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme and took crores of rupees from the innocent investors and embezzled that amount. In the case diary statements of Bharat Tuslani, Prakash Kursija, Vivek Upadhyay, Ashish Jain, Jagdish Budhani, Hirdesh Handa, Gajanand Gore, Praveen Tiwari, Kishore Choudhary, Rajesh Bagadiya, Abhishek Ray and Ritesh Agrawal it is mentioned that they had invested money in the scheme on the advice of the applicant and deposited money in the account of applicant or in the account of other persons at his behest. Thereafter, applicant and co-accused embezzled their money. One other offence is also registered against the applicant at Police Station Kampu, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, so he should not be released on bail.
The case of the applicant is not similar to co-accused Vineet Yadav who was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05/11/2019 passed Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 29/01/2020 17:31:37 3 MCRC-49193-2019 in M.Cr.C. No. 38914/2019. There is no allegation against co-accused Vineet Yadav that he took any amount from the investors, while there is specific allegation against the applicant that he took amount from the innocent investors and embezzled that amount.
F ro m perusal of the case diary it is evident that the applicant in connivance with the other co-accused persons by organizing seminars in hotels in many cities of India, publishing booklets and through the website assured innocent investors that on purchasing the crypto currency Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC), they would get guaranteed handsome returns within a certain period (at the time of maturity) and took crores of rupees from the innocent investors and thereafter they embezzled that amount. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the enormity of fraud and the fact that the applicant has criminal past, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 29/01/2020 17:31:37