Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Agrawal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-17067-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-17067-2020
(ANURAG AGRAWAL Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-07-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajeshwar Rao, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is second application filed 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 and 471 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the I.T. Act.
The earlier bail application filed by the applicant has been dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 28/01/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.49193/2019.
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, 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 Signature Not Verified SAN applicant never instigated any persons to invest the amount in Plus Gold Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.07.28 16:06:38 IST 2 MCRC-17067-2020 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 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. Learned counsel further submitted that co-accused i.e. Seema Raikwar, Vinit Yadav, Subhash M. Salian, Harpreet Sahani against whom the allegations are similar in nature have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 29/07/2019, 05/11/2019, 03/12/2019 & 05/02/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.Nos.27294/2019, 38914/2019, 47831/2019 & 52570/2019 respectively. It is submitted that on the ground of parity also applicant is entitled tobe enlarged on bail. The applicant has been in custody since 29/08/2019. The charge-sheet has been filed and 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 Signature Not Verified SAN invested money in the scheme on the advice of the applicant and deposited Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.07.28 16:06:38 IST 3 MCRC-17067-2020 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. The earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court and since then there is no change in circumstance, so he should not be released on bail.
The case of the co-accused Seema Raikwar, Vinit Yadav, Subhash M. Salian, Harpreet Sahani who have been granted bail by this Court is not similar to the present applicant. It is alleged that the applicant took money from the innocent investors and in the case diary statement of the prosecution witnesses 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.
The earlier bail application filed by the applicant has been dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 28/01/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.49193/2019 and since then there is no change in the circumstances, except custody period. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence.
From 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 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.07.28 16:06:38 IST 4 MCRC-17067-2020 fraud, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.07.28 16:06:38 IST