A strong prima facie case and the risk of evidence tampering can justify the denial of bail even in the presence of contested arrest legality.

ORDER

1. The present bail application is filed under Section 4 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being CR NO. I- 11210015220075 of 2022 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offence punishable under Section s 4 06 , 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section s 3 and 4 of GPID Act and Section s 4 , 5 and 6 of the Lottery Cheating and Money Circulation Scheme Act .

2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the the applicant is a freelancer digital marketer for various companies and has been working in network marketing for last 16 years. Applicant is a law-abiding person and has clear antecedents. That, the arrest of the applicant in the present case is in violation of section 41A Cr PC and hence is perverse and illegal as per law. That, as per the precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in catena of cases, no arrest of an offender shall be made for offences which are punishable up to 7 years of imprisonment or having maximum of 7 years of imprisonment unless investigating officer in his wisdom feels that the arrest is imperative and thereafter, he needs to take permission of concerned DCP before making an arrest. In any other case, where arrest is not required, IO is duty bound under the law to send a notice under section 41A Cr PC to accused and direct him to join the investigation. It is further submitted that offences under IPC, GPID and Lottery Cheating and Money Circulation Scheme Act as alleged in the present FIR attracts maximum imprisonment up to 7 years and henceforth arrest in present case is in clear violation of precedents laid down by the Supreme Court of India. Further, no notice under section 41A was served upon the applicant nor any notice was received by him in the present FIR and he was illegally detailed and arrested in the present case by the police.

Because Complainant in the present FIR has not disclosed the true and correct facts in his complaint filed before PS DCB Surat City. That, Bux Coin was launched by Bull Infotech Company, a company registered in London which is owned and run by co-accused Mohsin Jamil which is into business of Blockchain development and forex trading and applicant has nothing to do with the said company in any discharged. Hence no offence under section 406 IPC 1s said to have been committed by the applicant in the present FIR. That, the chief agent of www.bitsolives.com hired by co-accused Mohsin Jamil to promote Bux Coin was co-accused Prashant Bhrambhatt and applicant was not the agent of Bux Coin or Bitsolives.

Furthermore, to attract section 409 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was misappropriation of property as laid down under section 405 IPC. Since no offence is made out under section 405 IPC, section 409 IPC cannot be attracted in present FIR. Furthermore, since applicant is not the agent of Bitsolives or Bux Coin section 409 IPC is not applicable upon the present applicant.

4. It was further submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that no offence under GPID Act is made out against the applicant. That, nowhere is connected nor have anything to do with web portal www. bitsolives.com or with Bull Infotech Ltd. which launched the Bux Coin and is owned and controlled by co-accused Mohsin Jamil. It is submitted that deposit if any was done in Bux Coin scheme of which neither applicant is neither director nor the promoter or is anyhow involved in conducting day to day affairs. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow present appli