IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Amrit Dass - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No. 721 of 2025
Decided on : 09-05-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2), 318(4) - Information Technology Act - Section 66D - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for alleged financial fraud involving INR 2.7 crore - Court considers applicant's innocence, lack of criminal antecedents, and potential hardship to family - Previous bail applications were dismissed - Investigation is complete, and presumption of innocence remains - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 25, 28)
(B) Pre-trial punishment - The court emphasizes that pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law and that bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, arrested for financial fraud, claims innocence and argues that his family will suffer if bail is denied. Previous bail applications were dismissed. The police allege he was involved in a scheme that defrauded a complainant of INR 2.7 crore. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the applicant has no prior criminal record and that the presumption of innocence applies. The bail application is allowed, subject to conditions. (Paras 25, 28)
Issues: The main issues include the applicant's innocence, the impact of pre-trial detention, and the conditions under which bail may be granted. (Paras 1, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and the potential hardship to his family justified granting bail, reaffirming that pre-trial punishment is not permissible. (Paras 26, 28)
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Amrit Dass, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.33 of 2024, dated 17.12.2024, registered, under Sections 61(2), 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 66 D of the Information and Technology Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’), with Cyber Crime Police Station, Southern Range, Shimla, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the present case and presently, he is in judicial custody.
3. The applicant has termed the case of the police, registered against him, as false and concocted one.
4. As per the applicant, he is having deep roots in the society, as such, there are no chances of his fleeing away from justice.
5. It is the further case of the applicant that he is sole bread earner of his family, as such, if the bail application is not allowed, his family will face extreme hardship.
6. The applicant has earlier tried his luck by moving similar application before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.IV, Shimla, however, the same was dismissed on 06.01.2025. Thereafter, he has filed bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, which was also dismissed on 22.01.2025.
7. As per the applicant, he is having no criminal antecedents, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody, as pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law.
8. On the basis of the above facts, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has given certain undertakings, to which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail.
9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
10. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, on 17.12.2024, a complaint was forwarded to the Cyber Police Station, District Shimla, by DIG, Cyber Crime, Shimla. The said complaint was filed by Dr.Ajay Goel, Poonam Nursing Home Trilokpur Road, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, in which, he has alleged as under:-
“Ma'am/Sir, I want to bring to your attention the financial fraud committed against me, amounting to INR 2.7 crore. I request your immediate attention to this matter and help get my life-earned savings back. On 6th November, I was approached by a man who posed to be a senior official with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (a leading financial markets advisory service in India). While selling his advisory services, he showed proof of over 400 investors who are associated with their India business and how their team generated promising returns on the investments. The head of the brokerage services introduced himself as Sanoke Vishawanathan, who happens to be the actual CEO of J.P. Morgan's International Consumer and Wealth division. Upon seeing this person's profile on social media, I somehow was convinced that this is indeed a reputed organisation I will be investing with. They also showed me their application which their clients used for investing funds and tracking them. Here are the links to their website: jpmsecuikty.com, jpmsledrty.top They then created a WhatsApp group and provided daily buy and sell recommendations for stock market investments. They also me to register on their app through which I can transfer the amount to their account and purchase the stocks from there. Their app was designed to show the investments I have made till now and the profit I have earned so far. Over the past one month, I have transferred INR 2,70,19,316.50 to them via multiple bank transactions (details attached) each time to a different person/entity with a different bank account. My suspicion with them arose when I attempted to withdraw funds from my account.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, allowing bail when investigation is complete and no prior cases exist.
The absence of direct evidence against the applicant and the completion of the investigation justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of parity with co-accused.
The court granted bail to the applicant due to lack of direct evidence against him, emphasizing the importance of individual rights during trial.
Pre-trial custody is prohibited as punishment; bail may be granted if investigation is complete and no purpose is served by continued detention.
The court established that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and justified the bail grant based on completed investigation and parity with a co-accused.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete, and the accused is not a habitual offender, provided conditions are imposed to ensure trial attendance and evidence integrity.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited under law, affirming the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.
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.