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
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
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 ....
The severity of the offense, the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, and the likelihood of the accused absconding are key considerations in determining bail applications.
Active involvement in an economic offence, including planning, deliberate design, and siphoning off a huge amount of money from investors, can lead to rejection of bail applications.
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
The court balanced the right to personal liberty with the need for the accused's presence at trial, emphasizing that continued custody should be based on the risk of interference in the administratio....
The court confirmed that sufficient evidence exists to prosecute the applicant for financial fraud related to cryptocurrency investments, emphasizing the limited scope for reviewing interlocutory ord....
The court granted bail under the PMLA, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence linking the applicant to money laundering, and highlighting the necessity for a predicate offence to substantiate ch....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.