Vijay Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(HP) 1704

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sushil Kukreja, J.
Vijay Kumar Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No. 2264 of 2025
Decided On : 03-12-2025

Important Points

Economic offences of huge magnitude with deep conspiracy and public fund loss require stringent bail denial, prioritizing offence gravity, prima facie evidence, tampering/fleeing risks over custody duration, medical pleas, or trial delays.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail

Act Referred

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.483
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.420
HIMACHAL PRADESH PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS ACT : S.59
BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT : S.21, S.23
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21

Headnote

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 120B - Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 - Section 59 - Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 - Sections 21, 23 - Bail in economic offences - Crypto-currency fraud promising high returns via websites leading to crores loss - Petitioner prima facie received fraud proceeds in cash for real estate investments, joint property acquisitions, suspicious banking with huge unexplained deposits post-2018 - Attempt to flee country, sale of properties post-freezing order - Economic offences class apart, committed with cool calculation for personal gain - Bail denied considering offence gravity, deep conspiracy, public interest, tampering/fleeing risk - Incarceration period, medical grounds, co-accused parity, trial delay insufficient. (Paras 2-5,7-18,20-24,25-33)

(B) Bail - Principles - Balancing offence nature, punishment severity, prima facie involvement, evidence, tampering apprehension, public/State interest - No detailed evidence analysis at bail stage, but reasonable grounds assessment - Stringent parameters for socio-economic offences. (Paras 7,20-24)

(C) Bail - Medical grounds - Granted only if jail facilities inadequate, compelling reasons - Not routine for age-related ailments. (Para 25)

(D) Bail - Delay/Trial pendency - Mere long custody or uncertain trial conclusion not entitle bail in grave offences. (Paras 26-32)

Facts of the case:
FIR for fraud via crypto schemes alluring investments with doubling promises, halting payouts, shifting platforms, total loss Rs.18 crores. Petitioner linked via cash deliveries to his premises for properties, witness statements, joint agreements, disproportionate banking, detained at airport en route abroad, post-arrest property sales violating orders.

Findings of Court:
Prima facie petitioner managed/laundered fraud cash into assets; strong evidence via statements, documents, transactions; continued custody serves justice ends.

Issues: Grant of regular bail in massive economic offence - role assessment, parity, medical, delay grounds viability against offence gravity/public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Economic offences demand distinct bail approach - viewed seriously for economy impact; deny where prima facie deep conspiracy, huge loss, personal gain design, flight/tampering risks outweigh personal factors.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Chauhan & Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General

Table of Content
1. crypto fraud defrauded investors rs.18 crores. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner claims no role; state fears tampering. (Para 4 , 5)
3. bail balances offence nature, evidence, risks. (Para 6 , 7)
4. petitioner laundered fraud cash into properties. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. economic offences gravely impact national economy. (Para 17 , 18)
6. stringent bail standards for economic crimes. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. medical bail requires jail facility inadequacy. (Para 25)
8. delay irrelevant in serious economic offences. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
9. bail dismissed due to prima facie involvement. (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, Judge

The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”) for grant of regular 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, 1999 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that on the basis of written complaint made by one Shri Arun Singh Guleria (complainant) on 24.09.2023, a case was registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, HP. It was alleged in the said complaint that a group of individuals, including Subhash Sharma, Hem Raj, Sukhdev (residents of Mandi), Abhishek Sharma (resident of Una), and Milan Garg, (resident of Meerut, UP), were engaged in fraudulent activities related to crypto-currency H.P. On the advice of accused Subhash Sharma, the complainant alongwith others had invested in a website, i.e., www.voscrow.io, which was owned by accused Subhash Sharma alongwith Milan Garg and in lieu of their investments, virtual currency was provided through the website. Accused Subhash Sharma alongwith promoters Sukh Dev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma, allegedly cheated the general public through websites, like Voscrow and Hypenext. During the period between 2019-2020, the aforesaid persons promised the individuals to double their money and such promises continued till 2021 and during that period, some individuals received distributions of funds against their investments, which led to increase in the investments, resultantly many people invested. On 25.12.2021, the allocations were halted by Subhash Sharma and later on, he assured that the allocations would resume soon. Subsequently, Subhash Sharma tied-up with Hypenext, which was owned by Milan Garg and on being persuaded, the people invested/reinvested in Hypenext again and they also received partial funds against their investments, which practice continued till 2022. Thereafter, due to technical issues, the company requested five months’ time for payment qua which, through a video, Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg informed the entire community. In total, the amount involved was Rs.18 Crores and they acknowledged and promised to activate new IDs on 8th August, 2023 at Aglobal.io, however, neither his (complainant) community, nor he received any money. Hence, it was alleged that Milan Garg, Subhash Sharma, Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma defrauded the people by creating fake website and it was a well-planned conspiracy.

3. As per the FIR, the accused 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 Rs.18 crores 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. It was unearthed that the modus operandi of the alleged fraud involved alluring in