Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Juneja vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 November, 2024
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1799 of 2024 Reserved on: 25.10.2024 Decided on: 12.11.2024 Vijay Kumar Juneja ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Varun Chauhan and Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Raj Negi, Ms. Swati Draik, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General.
____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short BNSS) for releasing him on 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, 199 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) Schemes Act, 2019, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
2. The facts of the case, which emerge from the record, are encapsulated as under:
2(a). On 24.09.2023 on the basis of the complaint made by Shri Arun Singh Guleria (complainant) a case was registered at Palampur Police Station, District Kangra, H.P. As per the complainant, on the advice of Subhash Sharma, resident of Mandi, H.P., they had invested in a website, i.e., www.voscrow.10, which was owned by the above said Subhash Sharma alongwith one Milan Garg, resident of Meerut, U.P. In lieu of their investments, virtual currency was provided through the website. The complainant further alleged that above said Subhash Sharma alongwith promoters Sukh Dev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma, who are residents of Mandi and Una, respectively, allegedly cheated the general public through websites like Voscrow and Hypenext.
2(b). The complainant further alleged that during the period between 2019 to 2020, the above persons, promised the individuals to double their money and such promises continued till 2021 and during this period, some individuals received distributions of funds against their investments and this led to
3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) increase in investments. Resultantly, many people invested and on 25th December allocations were halted by Subhash Sharma and later he assured that allocations would resume soon. Subsequently, Subhash Sharma tied up with Hypenext, which was owned by Milan Garg of Meerut. On being persuaded, the people invested and reinvested in Hypenext again and people also received partial funds against their investments and such practice continued till 2022. Thereafter, the company declared inability to provide returns due to technical problems requesting five months' time for payment and qua this both Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg informed the entire community through a video. In total, the amount involved was rupees eighteen crores and they acknowledged and promised to activate new IDs on 8th August, 2023 at Aglobal.io, however, as per the complainant neither his community nor he received any money. The complainant alleged that Subhash Sharma, Hemraj, Milan Garg, Sukhdev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma defrauded the people by creating fake website and it was a well-planned conspiracy. 2(c). As per the FIR, the above said 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 eighteen crore 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) rupees 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.
2(d). 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 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.
2(e). During the course of the investigation, a confession was received at email id of Palampur Police Station from the email id of Subhash Sharma aforesaid. In the said email Subhash Sharma submitted that for the past 10-12 years, he had been residing at his permanent address at Zirakpur and recently he had to move abroad due to some family issues. During his time abroad, he was informed about the allegations related to crypto currency against him and some associates, leading to the 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) filing of an FIR, which was being investigated by the SIT. He further clarified that he had no intention of escaping these allegations by staying abroad and when he left the country, no FIR or any such allegation was against him. He did not sell his assets or engaged in any wrongdoing before leaving. His family, including his children and parents, continued to live in India and his wife and children later on joined him abroad due to threats of some individuals. He came to know about the actions of Vijay Kumar Juneja (petitioner herein) and his family. He was involved in a property business with the petitioner, where he had invested 70% of the funds in various properties. After 2017-18 Vijay Juneja and his family purchased several properties with his significant financial contribution. They own Juneja Square, VIP Road Plot and Nabha village Land and additionally Vijay Juneja's name was on some properties solely due to their agreement, where he provided the majority of the funds, i.e., VIP Road Plot, worth rupees six crores, Juneja Square, worth rupees ten crores and other properties including 4 acres of land, half of which was registered in his and Vijay's names, with 70% of the funds provided by him.
2(f). Subhash Sharma further stated that after the registration of FIR, the petitioner sold some of the properties and 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) he kept the proceeds thereof. He urged to freeze these properties to secure them until the case was resolved. The petitioner was having signatory authority over their joint bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra, Yes Bank and ICICI Bank and he withdrew the payments made into these accounts by using forged signatures. The petitioner was a small-time employee at Royal Estate and after meeting him and his team, he acquired properties like Juneja Square and handled significant crypto funds. Various leaders and associates transferred large sums to him and the same were misused. As per Subhash Sharma, the petitioner, alongwith his family, embezzled funds worth approximately 25-30 crore rupees from him and Subhash Sharma aforesaid requested the SIT and the State Government to freeze all their assets and ensure recovery until the legal verdict.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. He further contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had allured anyone to invest in crypto currency scheme or had ever induced them to part with duped money or he is the beneficiary of any amount allegedly invested by various persons in the scheme of cryptocurrency. He 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) also contended that at the time of the investment of the money, the petitioner had no knowledge that accused Subhash Sharma was involved in the scheme of the crypto currency. There is no allegation against the petitioner in all the charge-sheets, which have been filed by the investigating agency against the accused persons before the learned Trial Court. The further contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been joining the investigation and has always co-operated with the investigating agency and therefore no fruitful purpose would be served in case his bail application is rejected.
4. Conversely, the learned Advocate General has contended that the substantial gains, which were acquired by accused Subhash Sharma and other accused persons, i.e., Hemraj, Sukhdev, Abhishek Sharma and Milan Garg etc., through the fraudulent scheme of crypto currency, were invested in acquiring the valuable assets, i.e., movable and immovable properties at different places through the present petitioner. He has further contended that the instant is a case of huge economic offence and the investigation reveals the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. He has also contended that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may flee from justice or even tamper with the prosecution 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) evidence, therefore, the instant bail application, which is devoid of merits, may be dismissed.
5. I have given my considered though to the rival contentions raised and also gone through the police file as well as the status report(s) filed by the prosecution.
6. No doubt at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on merits of the case need not be taken but the order must reflect the reasons for arriving at a prima facie conclusion as to why bail is being granted or refused, particularly when the accused- petitioner is charged with the commission of economic offences.
7. In the case on hand, as per the material available on record, during the investigation it was unearthed that the petitioner Vijay had a longstanding relation with Subhash Sharma and when Subhash started the Korvio Community, he collected cash from the investors for investment. Initially, the cash was invested in digital currency and when Subhash met the petitioner, the petitioner proposed investing in cash in real estate for higher returns. It was unearthed during the investigation that on the persuasion of the petitioner, Subhash Sharma directed Hemraj, Sukhdev, Abhishek, Vipin, Govind Goswami, Vishal Verma, Sanjay Saklani, Dharmender, Suresh and Omprakash to 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) hand over the collected cash to the petitioner and the petitioner opened join bank accounts with Subhash Sharma and other accused persons, viz., Hemraj, Abhishek and Sukhdev to legitimize the funds. Petitioner Vijay Kumar entered the real estate business in 2003 and until 2018 his accounts had shown Rs.1,89,06,940/- and after 2018, in 15 accounts, which were opened in the name of Juneja's family members and others, there was cumulative credit of Rs.51,19,26,982/-.
8. The petitioner and his sons had deposited a total sum of Rs.3,10,66,227/- in the accounts opened during the crypto currency operations, which was primarily withdrawn by them. It was further unearthed that most of the withdrawals occurred after Subhash Sharma fled away from the country. The petitioner Vijay Kumar deposited and withdrew a total sum of Rs.3,24,03,736/- from the accounts opened in the names of his domestic help and employees, thereby concealing the funds derived from crypto currency transactions.
9. The petitioner by using the funds from the above accounts purchased Juneja Square, i.e., four showrooms adjoining Riverdale Business Center, Nabha Road, Zirakpur, land (purchased on 27.04.2021) at Village Nabha Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and Studio Apartments (purchased on 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) 22.12.2021) at VIP Enclave, VIP Road, Bishanpur, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab. Studio apartments have been rented out and rental income amounting to more than Rs.15,00,000/- has been solely retained by Vijay Kumar, without sharing its proceeds with Subhash Sharma, whose 70% funds have been used in Studio Apartments. It was further unearthed that the petitioner purchased 2 acres of land from a Colonel for rupees ten crores and Subhash Sharma contributed 70% of this amount in cash and the land was got registered for rupees two crore sixty lacs.
10. The investigation further reveals that Subhash Sharma, through email, sent an audio recording revealing that the petitioner is holding an amount of Rs.25 crores to 30 crores and the said amount belongs to the crime proceeds. The investigation further reveals that by 2018 the petitioner and his family members maintained three bank accounts. During the period from the year 2003 to 2018, these accounts were actively used for transactions and cumulative sum of Rs.1,89,06,940/- was credited and debited. The transactions were primarily associated with the real estate business activities. It has come in the investigation that on 17.01.2020 a tour was organized by the petitioner and Subhash Sharma to Thailand, which was specifically arranged for leaders of crypto community for 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) promoting a crypto-based MLM scheme and one Neeraj Jain was co-ordinating the logistics of the tour.
11. It has come in the investigation that the petitioner opened three joint bank accounts with Subash Sharma and one of these account also involved Hem Raj and Sukhdev. In the said accounts total transactions of Rs.3,10,66,227/- were made and significant withdrawals were made by the petitioner and his family members. After the association of the petitioner with Subhash Sharma in 2018, the petitioner opened 15 additional bank accounts in his and in his family's name. As per the investigation, these accounts were used for transactions of Rs.51,19,26,982/-. The investigation also shows that since the year 2020, the petitioner is managing and routing considerable amounts through the accounts of his servants and employees and total amount of Rs.3,24,03,736/- has been handled. The petitioner has rented out all the studio joint apartments, utilizing 70% of the funds allegedly provided by Subhash Sharma and the rental income, which exceeds Rs.15,00,000/- was retained solely by the petitioner and he did not share this income with Subhash Sharma.
12. As per the prosecution, it has come in the investigation that the petitioner entered into a 10% share 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) agreement for Juneja Square with Subhash Sharma and Hemraj, but subsequently he got transferred the property in his own name and the total value of this property is Rs.2 crore. The petitioner had recently transferred Rs.3,60,00,000/- to various accounts from his personal bank accounts and such sudden movement of funds raises concerns and warrants further scrutiny to understand the underlying intentions and to ensure that these funds are not used to undermine the legal process.
13. The investigation further reveals that the petitioner was also involved in unauthorized sale of property jointly owned by Subhash Sharma, leading to illegal accumulation of assets. The petitioner and Subhash Sharma jointly purchased land from a Retired Colonel Paramjeet Singh and this land was subdivided into 44 plots, out of which 32 plots were sold by the petitioner after the registration of FIR, without the consent of Subhash Sharma, 10 plots belonging to Subhash Sharma were intended to be seized as part of the legal proceedings, but these plots were sold by the petitioner for Rs.35,00,000/- each.
14. It was unearthed in the investigation that on 06.01.2022, the petitioner and Colonel Parmjeet Singh agreed on 2 acres of land. Hemraj had already paid Rs.1,11,00,000/- in cash and Rs.25,00,000/- through bank account, with a total 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) agreed purchase amount of Rs.11 crores. Hemraj had left Rs.6 crores with the petitioner for this land, but after the arrest of Hemraj on 02.10.2023, the petitioner got registered the property in his and his son Masoom Juneja's name for Rs.4,50,00,000/-, despite the fact that Hemraj had already paid Rs.7,36,00,000/-. Furthermore, it has come to light that the petitioner entered into an agreement worth Rs.39 crores with one Prem Singh, who had deposited Rs.3.75 crores in this Court. This demonstrates the involvement of the petitioner in substantial financial dealings stemming from the proceeds of the crime.
15. Thus, from the investigation, prima facie, it is evident that the petitioner is involved in the economic offences of huge magnitude. 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 granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications.
16. 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 and the principles for grant of bail in case of economic offences. Extracts from some of the most relevant and topical judgments on this point are set-out in the paragraphs that follow.
17. 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".
18. 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 respect of granting bail in economic offences having 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) 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 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."
19. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 the 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 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 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) 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-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national 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."
20. 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 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) 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 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 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."
21. 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:
"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 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) 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), 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 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..."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24, while dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of anticipatory bail should be sparingly exercised in economic offences. The relevant extract of this judgment is reproduced as under:-
"77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.386, para 19) 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.
Economic Offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain ((1998) 2 SCC 105), it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
XXX XXX XXX
83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of "placement", "layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin" and "interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets", it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As held in Anil Sharma, success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant."
23. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Serious Fraud Investigation Officer vs. Nittin Johari and another", (2019) 9 SCC 165, wherein, it set aside the order of High Court of Delhi granting bail to the accused therein and held that
24."...it is necessary to advert to the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Specifically, heed must be paid to the stringent view taken by this Court towards grant of bail with respect of economic offences....."
24. 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 21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) and Milan Garg etc., were invested in acquiring the valuable assets, i.e., movable and immovable properties at different places through the present petitioner. The prosecution further alleged that the original agreements, which are with the petitioner, are yet to be recovered, as the same are important to detect the money trail and unearth the involvement of other persons. 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 claim anticipatory bail as a matter of right. It is a settled law that the provisions for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS are not to be mechanically applied. Nature and gravity of the offence, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and larger public interest are some of the considerations which must weigh with the Court while deciding the application for grant of anticipatory bail. Liberty of a citizen is indeed of a paramount importance, but at the same time, fair and fearless investigation of case of a serious nature is of no less importance. The Court shall refrain from exercising its discretion in favour of the accused under Section 482 of BNSS if it adversely affects the 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) investigation and larger public interest. In view of the serious nature of allegations against them, a wall cannot be created between the Investigating Agency and the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in my view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. 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. The petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court on 14.08.2024 and he was ordered to join the investigation of the case, but as per the status report, he is not cooperating with the Investigating Agency and had failed to provide the necessary information. Since the petitioner is allegedly involved in the commission of a serious offence, his custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper investigation of the case.
25. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as the investigation in this case is still in progress, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is likely to hamper the progress of the investigation as such, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of BNSS to grant him anticipatory bail as such, the 23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:11122 ) present anticipatory bail application is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
26. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed and the interim protection granted to him vide order dated 14.08.2024 shall stand withdrawn.
27. 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 petition for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the same shall not come in the way of the trial court for considering the application that may be filed by the petitioner for regular bail or at the time of the trial and the trial Court concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
( Sushil Kukreja )
12th November, 2024 Judge
(virender)