IMPORTANT POINT
Cryptocurrency is not classified as 'money' under the PCMCS Act, and investments in cryptocurrency do not qualify as 'deposits' under the OPID Act, thus negating the applicability of the alleged financial offences.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

These Bail Applications have arisen out of the same case and involve common questions of fact and law. As such, both the applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners, in BLAPL No. 14644 of 2023 (Manoj Kumar Pattnaik) and BLAPL No 14599 of 2023 (Basanta Kumar Pradhan), are in custody since 17.11.2023 in connection with EOW CID C.B. Bhubaneswar, Orissa P.S. Case No. 25 of 2023 dated 16.10.2023 corresponding to C.T. case No. 124 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (under the OPID Act) at Cuttack for the alleged commission of Offence under Section 420/467/468/471/120-B of IPC read with Section 4,5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978 (PCMCS) read with Section 6 of OPID Act and Section 66-C of Information Technology Act.

Prosecution Case

3. The Inspector of Police (EOW Bhubaneswar) Rina Behera lodged an FIR on 16.10.2023 before the S.P. EOW on the basis of a complaint received from one Swagat Kumar Nayak against the CEO of Yes World, Sandeep Chowdhury, the present petitioners and other unnamed persons. It is alleged that the Petitioners, by targeting private individuals have been encouraging them to invest in crypto currency, Yes World Token by building a network of members. The investors are asked to recruit further investors on payment of interest or bonus which is expected to increase corresponding to the number of members added by them. The Company aimed to promote Save Earth Mission and Green Energy by increasing investment in its crypto currency, i.e. Yes Token. The complaint further revealed that the complainant came in contact with accused Manoj Kumar Pattnaik at Press Club Bhubaneswar, wherein the accused enticed him to invest in crypto currency in lieu of higher returns upon adding new members to the network. It is further alleged that Manoj Kumar Pattnaik added the informant to the whatsapp group 'Yes World Save Earth' that consisted of both the petitioners along with other members. After joining the group, accused Basant Kumar Pradhan urged him to add new members under his wallet ID. Following this, he created 5 more IDs on behalf of his family members and invested INR 62,000, which is in addition to INR 18,000 that he invested while creating his own Trust wallet ID, taking his total investment to INR 80,000. They convinced local persons through public meetings to join their network. As such, the meetings were presided by the petitioners, who logged into their personal ID during the meeting to demonstrate their incomes and encouraged the attendees to usher in new participants under their network chain for which they shall be earning referral income, staking bonus, and membership bonus proportional to the amount invested by the new participants. The complaint further alleged that all his IDs have been frozen as that of several others along with various other people's and the accused persons have thereby duped people of their hard earned money by operating a Ponzi / Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) Scheme in the name of a fake crypto currency company and/or Token.

4. Basing on such FIR, the aforementioned P.S. Case was registered and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation the petitioners were taken to custody on 17.11.2023 and several documents were seized, besides recording of the statements of several persons.

5. Heard Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr J.P. Patra learned counsel appearing for the State in OPID Matters.

Submissions

6. Ms. Mahapatra, learned Counsel would argue that the entire case of the prosecution is based on misunderstanding and erroneous perception of the investigating agency as regards the use of crypto currency. Moreover, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out at the least. Further, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner had induced any person to trad