SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Umesh Verma - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3500 of 2021
Decided On : 26-10-2021




The court emphasized that economic offenses, particularly fraud affecting multiple investors, warrant serious caution in granting bail due to the potential for evidence tampering and the applicant's history as a habitual offender.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B - Bail application rejected due to allegations of running a fraudulent crypto currency chit fund scheme leading to significant financial losses for multiple investors - Evidence suggested that the applicant misled complainants by promising high returns and subsequently fled to Dubai - The court emphasized the serious nature of the economic offense and the risk of evidence tampering. (Paras 2, 4, 25)

(B) Bail - Granting bail in cases involving economic offenses is approached with caution, especially where substantial amounts are embezzled, and the applicants have deliberate intentions to deceive investors. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The applicant allegedly induced victims to invest in a crypto currency scheme run by a company called Pluto Exchange, promising returns of 20-30% per month but failed to provide any returns, resulting in losses totaling approximately 2.5 Crores, after which the accused fled to Dubai. (Paras 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
The evidence showed a significant breach of trust with numerous complainants and no assurance of returns leading to a loss of faith in financial dealings. The applicant's prior history as a habitual offender further complicated his request for bail. (Paras 8, 26)

Issues: The main issues were the applicant's credibility, the nature of allegations, and the substantive evidence against him regarding economic fraud. (Paras 10, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: Fraudulent schemes undermine the economy and investor trust, justifying the denial of bail to protect against evidence tampering and ensure that justice is served efficiently. (Paras 25, 26)

Result: Application for bail dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The applicant, vide the present application has sought the grant of bail in relation to FIR No.132/2020, PS EOW (Crime Branch) Delhi, under Sections 420 , 406, 409, 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 with an alternative prayer seeking that he be released for two months on medical grounds.

2. As regards the prayer, that the applicant has made seeking the grant of bail for a period of two months on medical grounds, vide order dated 21.09.2021, the Superintendent Jail, Delhi was directed to submit the status of the present medical condition of the applicant after getting him examined. A report was thus received from the Superintendent Jail, Delhi dated 25.09.2021 which indicated that the applicant had been taken to the MI Room but that all adequate medical treatment was being provided to the applicant and that his condition was stable. In these circumstances, vide order dated 28.09.2021, it was considered appropriate that the application is heard on merits.

3. The status report dated 24.09.2021 was submitted under the signatures of the ACP, EOW with a further additional status report having been filed on 05.10.2021.

4. The allegations levelled against the applicant as per the status report are to the effect that the applicant along with the co-accused Bharat Verma and other associates were running a Crypto Currency chit fund company and held various meetings at their office address of the firm named Pluto Exchange in Connaught Place, Delhi to explain their crypto currency business and also the alleged high rate of return being given to clients whereby they allegedly induced the complainants to invest in the crypto currency in their firm on the assurance of high return upto 20-30% per month. As per the said status report, the complainants were further allured on the assurance of extra commission, if more clients were brought for the investment in the said firm Pluto Exchange. It is averred through the status report that on the assurance and inducement of the accused persons, the complainants gave their hard earned money for investment in the firm Pluto Exchange but thereafter did not receive return on their respective investments as assured by the alleged persons and later on, it was learnt that the accused persons including the present applicant closed the office of their firm at Connaught Place and fled to Dubai, without returning the amount of the complainants.

5. The FIR is indicated to have been lodged by one Jogender Kumar, S/o Sh.Tika Ram who stated that the cryptocurrency chit fund company named Pluto Exchange with its office at 6D, 6th floor, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001 being run by its Directors Umesh Verma, Bharat Verma, Kiran Verma, Madhuri Verma, Minal Kumar, Mr. Kanhaiya Gulati and Yogesh Sabarwal and that Umesh Verma i.e. the present applicant and Bharat Verma were running a gold and diamond business in the name of DLK JEWELS PVT LTD. at 3160/34 (3rd floor), Saraswati Marg, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 as well as HARI KRISHNA GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY PVT LTD and told them about their Dubai company named BHARAT UMESH GERNAL TRADING LLC, DUBAI and that Mr.Bharat Verma and Mr. Kanhaiya Gulati met the complainant at Connaught Place and told of their new business of crypto currency and that they had launched their own cryptocurrency and asked the complainant to invest in their crypto currency and assured him a fixed return of 20 to 30 % per month and also informed the complainant that they were running a business of crypto trading and crypto mining and were receiving a high return which was being given to their clients and also offered to give commission to the complainant if he brought more clients to his company and thus the complainant registered on this pluto exchange website i.e. www.plutoexchange.com and f2poolmining.com and invested Rs.5 Lakhs in the same but after one month, he received nothing as per the commitment of Mr.Bh
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top