Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1658 (MP)

Amit Soni v. Central Bureaau of Investigation

2014-12-12

G.S.SOLANKI

body2014
JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki, J. 1. This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. First application (M.Cr.C. No. 8095/2014) was dismissed on merits on 21.7.2014. 2. The applicant is in custody since 15.11.2013 in connection with Crime No. RC2/E/2014 (initial Crime No. 498/2013 registered at Police Station Cyber and High Technical Offences, Bhopal) registered at P.S. CBI, EOW, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC, Sections 43-B, 65, 66A, 66D, 71, 74 and 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 20-C, 21-A, 21-C, 21-G, 21-H of the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952 and Section 23 of the Security Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. 3. As per prosecution, a joint complaint was made by Vishal Garg, Lokesh Sharma, Navin Raghuvanshi, Samit Bule, Rajesh Soni, Kamlesh Dave, Hemant Soni and Chandraprakash Rathore to the Inspector General, Cyber Cell, Bhopal to the effect that the applicant and co-accused Anurag Soni gave information about opening of the account through a software on the mobile for trading with the MCX and the complainants were made to talk on the mobile to Swapnil Bhatt, who showed them the demonstration of online software of the MCX and told them as to how trading is done through the said software. On the aforesaid demonstration, the complainant were agreed upon to open the accounts with an amount of Rs. 2 Lacs each. The complainants were provided with a login ID and password of Meta Trade Software through the server known as Wintrade. After getting the login ID and password, the complainants entered into transaction of trading online on the login ID of the mobile software. They were told that their trading is being done on the MCX. It is further stated by the complainants that they could not find the status of the profit earned by them when they checked their balance on their ID. It is further stated that applicant Amit Soni was the owner of AU Commodity which was later on converted into Money House and Wintrade (Meta Trade 5). It is further stated by the complainants in the complaint that after sometime the complainants came to know that their transactions were not on the MCX and false ID was created by co-accused Anurag Soni and the applicant. It is further stated by the complainants in the complaint that after sometime the complainants came to know that their transactions were not on the MCX and false ID was created by co-accused Anurag Soni and the applicant. The software of Meta Trade 5 is being marketed and supplied to the general public by the name of Wind Trade server and crores of rupees have been obtained by the applicant and other co-accused persons thereby government revenue has also been put to lose. 4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint Crime No. 498/2013 was registered on 28.10.2013 at P.S. Cyber and High Technical Offences, Bhopal. During investigation, it has been found that the applicant and co-accused being the Directors of Money House Commodity, used the software Meta Trade 5 in contravention of the directions/policy of MCX and have cheated the innocent investors and also caused loss of crores of rupees to the government. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. After dismissal of the earlier application of the applicant, co-accused Swapnil Bhatt has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 11506/2014. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody since 15.11.2013, he cannot be retained in custody for an indefinite period, therefore, he be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent and the objector have opposed the application. 7. I have gone through the case diary. The applicant appears to be the main accused of the case as he was involved in purchasing the software, which has been used for cheating the complainants. It also appears that still investigation in regard to alleged software is going on under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and the applicant may be required for interrogation, in these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed. 9. Certified copy as per rules.