Bail may be denied in cases of organized financial fraud involving cryptocurrency where a nexus is established through fund transfers and the accused has significant criminal antecedents, despite the duration of incarceration.

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings

SL. No.

Date or directions

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

and Registrar’s order with Signatures

2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No.10 of 2023, under Sections 120B , 420, 34 I.P.C. and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. As per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, induced the complainant to invest money in a cryptocurrency trading platform/website namely “Bancoin” on the pretext of earning huge profits. It is alleged that the complainant, acting upon such inducement, invested a sum of ₹62,50,000/- through various transactions made via R.T.G.S. and N.E.F.T. The said amount was shown reflected in the trading application of Bancoin. However, when the complainant attempted to withdraw the invested amount on 29.05.2023, only a sum of ₹30,000/- was credited into his Punjab National Bank account. Thereafter, believing the representations made by the operators of the said platform, the complainant further invested ₹34,00,000/- on 17.08.2023, ₹4,00,000/- on 27.08.2023, ₹4,50,000/- on 17.09.2023, ₹4,00,000/- on 20.09.2023 and ₹16,00,000/- on 26.09.2023. It is further alleged that when the complainant sought withdrawal of ₹1,00,000/- on 25.09.2023, he was informed by the customer care executives of Bancoin that an amount of ₹16,00,000/- had allegedly been credited from an outside source and, therefore, the same had come under the category of “anti-money laundering”, requiring the complainant to deposit an additional sum of ₹16,00,000/- for clearance purposes. Trusting such representation, the complainant deposited the said amount as well. Subsequently, when the complainant again applied for withdrawal of ₹20,00,000/-, he was allegedly asked to deposit another sum of ₹10,00,000/-, whereupon he realised that he had been cheated and defrauded.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. It is contended that the applicant is languishing in judicial custody since July, 2025 and has suffered substantial incarceration. It is further submitted that the applicant had no direct role or involvement in the operation, management or administration of the alleged Bancoin trading platform/accounts and has been implicated merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel further submits that there is no legally admissible material on record connecting the applicant with the alleged fraudulent transactions and that the applicant has been charge-sheeted under incorrect and exaggerated provisions of law. It is also argued that the prosecution case is primarily documentary in nature, the evidence already stands collected during investigation and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in continued judicial custody. It is further submitted that, till date, only one prosecution witness has been examined and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time in its conclusion.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature involving large-scale financial fraud and cheating of innocent investors. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed that the applicant is one of the beneficiaries of the amount defrauded from the complainant, inasmuch as, a