Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 515 (MP)

Avinash Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-03-30

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - Heard with the aid of case diary. This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. applicant Shri avinash anand apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.20/2018 registered at Police Station STF Bhopal, District-Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 467, 120-B of the IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. act. as per the prosecution case, co-accused Rupesh Rai and Brajesh Raikwar, who were the business head for the marketing of a crypto currency Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC) in India, in connivance with the applicant and other co-accused persons by organizing seminars in hotels in many cities of India, publishing booklets and through the website assured innocent investors that on purchasing the coin, they would get guaranteed handsome returns within a certain period (at the time of maturity) thereby inducing the innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme and took crores of rupees from innocent investors. Thereafter under a pre-calibrated move, they started to lower down the price of that coin and lastly at the time of maturity, the value of the coin became zero. Thus they committed fraud with the innocent investors and embezzled their amount. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant never instigated any person to invest the amount in Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC). On the contrary, the applicant himself had invested his money in Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC) and suffered a huge loss. It was applicant who lodged report against the agency. applicant himself was cheated by the co-accused. although, it is alleged that the applicant took an active part in the seminars organized by co-accused Rupesh Rai and Brajesh Raikwar and instigated other persons to invest their money in the scheme, but there is no evidence on record to show that the applicant collected amount from any of the investors. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant took any money or benefit from the amount collected by co-accused Rupesh Rai and Brajesh Raikwar from the innocent investors. applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant took any money or benefit from the amount collected by co-accused Rupesh Rai and Brajesh Raikwar from the innocent investors. applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant and co-accused Rupesh Rai and Brajesh Raikwar by giving false assurance to the innocent investors that they would get guaranteed handsome return within a certain period (at the time of maturity) on purchasing that coin induced the innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme and took crores of rupees from the innocent investors and embezzled that amount. From the case diary statement of prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the applicant collected huge amount from the innocent investors and took huge benefit from the amount collected by him from innocent investors. So, he should not be released on anticipatory bail. From perusal of the case diary, it is evident that the applicant in connivance with the other co-accused persons by organizing seminars in hotels in many cities of India, publishing booklets and through the website assured innocent investors that on purchasing the crypto currency Plus Gold Union Coin (PGUC), they would get guaranteed handsome returns within a certain period (at the time of maturity) on purchasing that coin induced the innocent investors to invest the money in the scheme and took crores of rupees from the innocent investors and embezzled that amount. In the case diary statements Sushil Kumar, arvind Pal Singh, Javed Kayumi, Praveen Chitre, Ranjeet Kapoor it is mentioned that applicant induced them to invest the amount in the said chit-fund scheme and also collected money from them and thereafter embezzled that amount. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the enormity of fraud, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. accordingly, M.Cr.C. is rejected.