IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Lekh Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary (Home) To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petitions (Main) No.484, 555 of 2022
Decided on : 30-03-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 437, 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 120B - Prize and Money Circulation Schemes (Banking) Act, 1978 – Section 5, 6 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 21 and 22 – Criminal Conspiracy - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Protection of life and personal liberty - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest - Whether accused is a first time offender or has been accused of other offences.
Findings of the Court:
Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to supply a copy of complaint to Police Officer present in Court, enabling him to verify and deal with same in accordance with law - SHO, Police Station, is also directed to take appropriate necessary action on complaint filed by petitioner, as according to law on receipt of a complaint, police has only two options either to record it in Daily Diary Register or to register FIR. No third way is there for keeping it in file or pending - Therefore, learned Additional Advocate General is directed to communicate this order to SHO, Police Station, directing him to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, on complaint, if any, submitted by petitioner - Without commenting upon merits of rival contentions, but taking into consideration nature and gravity of offence, initial stage of investigation, and factors and parameters to be considered at time of adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, as propounded by Courts, including the Supreme Court, balancing personal interest vis-à-vis public interest, Court is of opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
Result: Bail petitions are dismissed
ORDER :
Both these Petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same FIR and involve similar questions of fact and law.
2. Petitioners Pawan Kumar (Cr.MP(M) No.484 of 2022) and Sanjeev Kumar (Cr.MP(M) No.555 of 2022) have filed the present Petitions, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), for grant of bail, in case FIR No.73 of 2022, dated 27.2.2022, registered under Sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and 5, 6 of the Prize and Money Circulation Schemes (Banking) Act, 1978, in Police Station Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
3. Status Report stands filed and placed on the file of Cr.MP(M) No.484/2022. Record has also been produced.
4. Prosecution case is that on 27.2.2022, complainant Manoj Kumar submitted a complaint in Police Station Balh, stating therein that in August 2020 his friend Pawan Sankhyan had introduced him with a person Sushil Jaryal, and Sushil Jaryal had stated that with a Plan in Crypto Currency an US Company ONYX Trading was there which had its browser registered as OFS Trading.com. Thereafter, he had demonstrated in his Mobile Phone by logging in his ID-ONYXHP04. He had told that there was a 105-days Plan through which on investments there will be 1½ times return within 4½ months and for that he had told about four types of investment Plans, i.e. 100 US Dollar (Rs.8,000), 500 US Dollar (Rs.41,000), 1000 US Dollar (Rs.82,000/- and 5000 US Dollar (Rs.4,10,000). Apart from it, Sushil Jaryal had also told that this amount was invested in Share Market, wherein there was hundred percent risk but the Company was extending guarantee to return the principal amount. Sushil Jaryal had also told that investment in Plan was to be made in cash and return thereof would be in Crypto Currency Exchange as BTC Dollar (Bitcoin). After telling that, Sushil Jaryal had shown receipt of BTC in Block Chain. Complainant was impressed by Sushil Jaryal to create 500 US Dollar ID-Manoj121, below Pawan Sankhyan, for confirmation whereof complainant received a Mail from Info@ofstrading.com. After confirmation, complainant started working in the Company and arranged meetings in Balh and Sundernagar area for convincing people for investment and in those meetings, head of the Company Birender Preet Singh alongwith his associates Sushil Jaryal and Pawan Sankhyan started to attend these meetings and in every meeting he had duped the people by assuring that their money shall be safe and in case of closure of Company he shall inform them six months in advance so as to enable them to withdraw their money and not to invest further. Complainant started working on the aforesaid investment Plan and created 650 IDs whereby people invested about Rs.5 crore. Most of the people gave cash for creating IDs and some amount was deposited in accounts. Cash was taken by Birender Preet Singh himself mostly and sometimes complainant had visited to hand over the cash to him. As per complainant, about Rs.2 crore was received by people in the shape of BTC or cash and complainant had also received Rs.15 Lakhs, which was invested by him in the same Company and thereafter Birender Preet Singh started direct communication with the complainant, who, in March 2021, told that there was some problem in the Company, resulting into closure of BTC, which will be started during next month. Upon this, complainant continued to arrange meetings and investment from people in the Company, but people started to make telephonic calls continuously with complaint that amount was not returning but as complainant was assured by Birender Preet Singh, he continued to respond by saying that they will get money during next month and by saying so he continued to assure persons on every date. Thereafter, in August 2021, Birender Preet Singh conducted a meeting in Nangal and told that there was no return of the amount and advised to generate a ticket through the I
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Arrest of an offender during in....
Article 21 of Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The court emphasized the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, highlighting the need to balance personal liberty with the investigative rights o....
Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information an....
Point of Law : Bail - Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cas....
Anticipatory bail in economic offences requires careful consideration of the gravity of accusations, potential for absconding, and must be granted sparingly, especially under the Prevention of Money ....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly in serious cases, and requires compliance with court conditions; failure to do so can lead to rejection of bail applications.
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.