Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijesh Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-13455-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-13455-2020
(BRIJESH RAIKWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 25-09-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri V.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajeshwar Rao, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
This is second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant Brajesh Raikwar was arrested on 23/06/2019 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, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 66-D of the I.T. Act.
Earlier bail filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit vide order dated 28.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.50893/2019.
A s per the prosecution case, applicant Brajesh Raikwar and co- accused Rupesh Rai who were the business head for the marketing of a crypto currency 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 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 complainants and other 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 the complainants and other persons to invest their amount in Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC). The complainants and other Signature Not Verified SAN persons had invested at their own with the hope to get huge benefit in the Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2020.09.25 12:34:18 IST 2 MCRC-13455-2020 scheme. The present applicant has nothing to do with the same and he has not received any amount invested by the complainants and other persons in the scheme. Some of the complainants had also visited the Directors of the company in Hongkong and gathered information regarding investment with the Company and benefits therefrom. Only then they invested the amount in the scheme and also instigated other persons to invest their money in the scheme and also took an active part in the promotional seminars of that scheme too. Applicant did not arrange any promotional seminar to instigate the persons to invest their money. Earlier, complainants earned huge profit from their investment, thereafter they themselves reinvested their amount in the scheme, but in the second time they suffered losses and wrongly lodged a report against the applicant. The present applicant has no concern with the alleged investment of the complainants. Learned counsel further submitted that from the statement of co-accused Subhash M. Salian it is clear that the website was operated by other persons from the outside of India and the applicant had no control over the website. He further submitted that applicant is ready to deposit some of the amount out of the alleged amount. The applicant is in custody since 23/06/2019 and conclusion of the trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant Brajesh Raikwar and co-accused Rupesh 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, so the applicant should not be released on bail.
The earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. Signature Not Verified SAN No.50893/2019, thereafter, there has been no change in circumstances, except Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2020.09.25 12:34:18 IST 3 MCRC-13455-2020 the custody period of the applicant. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director, (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, cannot be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence.
Although, it is alleged that some complainants had also visited the Directors of the company in Hongkong and after gathering information regarding investment with the Company and benefits therefrom they invested the amount in the scheme besides inducing other persons to invest their money in the scheme and also took an active part in the promotional seminars of that scheme and earlier, some of the complainants also earned profits from their investment, but it also alleged that besides the complainants applicant also duped other innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme and took crores of rupees from innocent investors and embezzled that amount. In the case diary statement of many prosecution witnesses, it is mentioned that applicant took money from them. So, looking to the enormity of fraud, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Hence, this application is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE mn Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 2020.09.25 12:34:18 IST