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. 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 trade in crypto currency or to make any investment therein. There is also no evidence to show that any amount was paid to him by any investors. In any event, crypto currency is also a legal tender as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Internet Mobile Association of India V. Reserve Bank of India, 2020 SCC online SC 275. Ms. Mahapatra would further argue that the prosecution has been launched against the petitioner on a misconception regarding the crypto currency and its transactions. In any event, crypto currency is also a legal tender as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Internet Mobile Association of India V. Reserve Bank of India, 2020 SCC online SC 275. Ms. Mahapatra would further argue that the prosecution has been launched against the petitioner on a misconception regarding the crypto currency and its transactions. She also argues that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. In this regard Ms. Mahapatra would argue that crypto currency is not 'money' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of PCMCS Act 1978, for which the offences under Section 4, 5 and 6 of said Act are not made out. Similarly, according to Ms. Mahapatra, the allegation of commission of offence under Section 6 of the OPID Act is also misconceived, since the amount invested by the individuals to trade in crypto currency cannot be treated as 'deposit' within the meaning of Section 2-b of the OPID Act. As regards the IPC offences also, Ms. Mahapatra makes similar submissions and contends that there is absolutely no proof to show that the petitioner had acted fraudulently or with the specific intent to cheat any person. She further argues that the petitioners never promised returns to any person which would be evident from the statements of the witnesses examined by the I.O. most of whom have stated that they were induced to invest being attracted by the prospect of getting higher returns. No one has stated that he was directly or indirectly induced by the petitioner to deposit. Explaining the working of the scheme, Ms. Mahapatra submits that the amount credited is on a person to platform basis (P 2 P) and is kept in a Trust Wallet in a secured manner. It is not open to any person, other than the investor, to deal with such amount. Additionally, Ms. Mahapatra, argues that the Supreme Court in the case of Internet and Mobile Association of India (supra) has categorically held that as on date, virtual currencies are not banned by the Reserve Bank of India or the Government of India. 7. Mr. J.P. Patra, learned State Counsel appearing in OPID matters would argue that the transactions effected by the petitioners are nothing but part of a Ponzi Scheme and that they have obtained crores of rupees in the name of crypto currency. 7. Mr. J.P. Patra, learned State Counsel appearing in OPID matters would argue that the transactions effected by the petitioners are nothing but part of a Ponzi Scheme and that they have obtained crores of rupees in the name of crypto currency. The entire modus operandi of the petitioners is to lure ordinary people into making investments on the promise of getting attractive returns in future. The petitioners have cleverly manipulated their operations only to cheat the Investigating Agencies, but investigation has clearly revealed that they were running a Ponzi Scheme. Mr. Patra further contends that unlike other crypto currencies, the investor in Yes World Token does not have full control over his wallet since it is dependent upon addition of members and further that when the members are not added, the wallet would be suspended. Mr. Patra further submits that investigation revealed that the scheme was being operated as a pyramid structure, wherein persons like the petitioners were placed at different levels of the structure depending on the money earned by them through bonus, commission, royalty etc. All the persons investing money in Yes World Token have been assured of higher returns which is not to be found in case of other crypto currencies. In the process, huge amounts were collected from different persons. Analysis 8. I have heard the rival submissions at length and have perused the materials on record including the case diary produced by learned counsel for OPID carefully. A bare reading of the FIR would suggest that the petitioners have been alleged to have convinced local persons through personal interactions and public meetings to join their network. As such, thousands of people are said to have become active members of Yes World Token. The statements of a few persons have been recorded by the I.O. during investigation. It would be relevant to refer to statements of some such witnesses in order to appreciate the prosecution allegations. One, Debadutta Basantaray, states that being induced by the petitioners, he has become a member by investing Rs. 2 lakh/-. Further, he was explained the scheme by petitioners in the following words: '... He also stated that it is a chain system and if one creates more members under him can get more benefits. They also stated that if one invests 2.5. lakhs in Yes Token, he will get 6 lakhs in one and half year. 2 lakh/-. Further, he was explained the scheme by petitioners in the following words: '... He also stated that it is a chain system and if one creates more members under him can get more benefits. They also stated that if one invests 2.5. lakhs in Yes Token, he will get 6 lakhs in one and half year. XXX XXX XXX Being asked I am to state that Zoom meeting is held everyday evening (T) online in which Sandip Chowdhury, Country head (CEO) Yashdev Singh and others interacted with the group members and motivated them to add more members under their chain. In this group, in order to motivate people to invest and add more down line members they send narratives about the scheme of investment and future of'Yes Token' & brochure etc of Yes World.' 9. Similar statements has been given by Akshaya Kumar Dash, Premananda Mohanty, Sangram Kesari Panda, and Ranjan Sahoo. Not a single person so examined has stated to have paid any amount to the petitioners nor about any promise being made of getting higher returns on such investment by him. The only thing that is evident from a reading of the statements is that the several persons were asked to enroll new members which would enhance their earnings. 10. Accepting the prosecution case as such, this Court is unable to appreciate as to how this act can constitute any of the offences alleged. As is evident, the members of the public who participated in trading in crypto currency appear to have done so on their own free will and volition as also on the desire of getting higher returns. There is not a whisper of allegation that the Petitioners had promised them higher returns on their investment as usually happens in case of a Ponzi Scheme. Insofar as the PCMCS Act is concerned, Section 2(b) thereof defines money as follows;- 'Money includes a cheque, postal order, demand draft, telegraphic transfer or money order. ' Yes World Token, on the other hand, is a crypto currency which is purchased by the investors indirectly by purchasing USTD or by directly buying it through upline workers in cash and thereafter, kept in their respective Trust Wallets. Therefore, Yes World Token cannot be said to be money within the meaning of the Act. ' Yes World Token, on the other hand, is a crypto currency which is purchased by the investors indirectly by purchasing USTD or by directly buying it through upline workers in cash and thereafter, kept in their respective Trust Wallets. Therefore, Yes World Token cannot be said to be money within the meaning of the Act. Such being the case, naturally, the offences under Section 4,5 and 6 of the said Act would prima facie not be made out. 11. Coming to the offence under Section 6 of the OPID Act is seen that Section 2(b) of the Act defines 'deposit' as follows;- ''Deposit' means the deposit of money either in one lump sum or by installments made with the Financial Establishment for a fixed period for interest or for return in any kind or for any service:' Thus, the essential ingredient required to invoke Section 6 of the OPID Act is that some money must have been deposited either in lump sum or by installments with the financial establishment. In the instant case, as already stated Yes World Token, being a crypto currency, is not deposited in any financial establishment but is kept secure in a Trust Wallet. This appears to have been interpreted as 'deposit' within meaning of section 2(b) of the OPID Act and sought to be projected as a Ponzi Scheme. There is an essential difference between deposits in a Ponzi scheme and trading in crypto currency. In the case of Internet and Mobile Association of India (supra), the Supreme Court held that the ban imposed by RBI on use of digital currency is unreasonable and therefore, struck it down. It was held that virtual currencies are valid mode of payments in the exchange of goods and services and do not violate the provisions of Payments Settlements and Systems Act, 2007. The following observations made by the Supreme Court are worthy of note;- '6.171. In case the said enactment (2019) had come through., there would have been an official digital currency, for the creation and circulation of which, RBI/central government would have had a monopoly. But that situation had not arisen. The position as on date is that VCs are not banned, but the trading in VCs and the functioning of VC exchanges are sent to comatose by the impugned Circular by disconnecting their lifeline namely, the interface with the regular banking sector. But that situation had not arisen. The position as on date is that VCs are not banned, but the trading in VCs and the functioning of VC exchanges are sent to comatose by the impugned Circular by disconnecting their lifeline namely, the interface with the regular banking sector. What is worse is that this has been done (i) despite RBI not finding anything wrong about the way in which these exchanges function and (ii) despite the fact that VCs are not banned. xxx xxx xxx xxx 6.173. It is no doubt true that RBI has very wide powers not only in view of the statutory scheme of the 3 enactments indicated earlier, but also in view of the special place and role that it has in the economy of the country. These powers can be exercised both in the form of preventive as well as curative measures. But the availability of power is different from the manner and extent to which it can be exercised. While we have recognized elsewhere in this order, the power of RBI to take a preemptive action, we are testing in this part of the order the proportionality of such measure, for the determination of which RBI needs to show at least some semblance of any damage suffered by its regulated entities. But there is none. When the consistent stand of RBI is that they have not banned VCs and when the Government of India is unable to take a call despite several committees coming up with several proposals including two draft bills, both of which advocated exactly opposite positions, it is not possible for us to hold that the impugned measure is proportionate. ' 12. It is clear that mere dealing in crypto currency cannot be treated as illegal in any manner. Thus, the offence under Section 6 of OPID Act is also not made out. 13. As regards the IPC offences, in view of what has been narrated hereinbefore, it is evident that the petitioners can only be said to have attempted to convince members of the public to trade in crypto currency Yes World Token. There is nothing on record to show that they had dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property to them. In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever of any money being transferred from any person to the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that they had dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property to them. In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever of any money being transferred from any person to the petitioners. The Petitioners may have earned commission/bonus from the company for convincing the public to invest in crypto currency but that by itself cannot partake the nature of dishonest earning. The methodology adopted being person to platform (P 2 P), it cannot be said that the petitioners had cheated any person particularly in view of the fact that any amount invested by any person remains secure in his or her Trust Wallet. Thus, the offence under Section 420 does not appear, prima facie, to be made out. There is no evidence that any documents, records etc. were forged, manipulated, manufactured etc. so as to attract the offences under Section 467/468/471 of IPC. Summation 14. From the forgoing narration, it is clear that the petitioners were dealing with crypto currency which, as on date which is per se, not illegal. There is no evidence to show that they had convinced members of the general public to invest in any company (financial establishment) money on promise of high returns rather it is borne out from the materials on record that the investors acted on their own volition with the desire of higher returns. There is no evidence to show that any person was defrauded or that his investment was misappropriated by the petitioner. Further, crypto currency is not money within the meaning of PCMCS Act. Finally, the investment made by the general public in crypto currency cannot partake the nature of deposit within the meaning of OPID Act. Thus, there is no evidence of a definite offence having been committed. The maxim nullum sine crimen lege meaning there can be no crime without law applies to the case at hand. It is needless to mention that there is an absence of a proximal nexus between the petitioners and the alleged offences. In the considered view of this Court, therefore, detention of the petitioners in custody, appears to be unjustified. Conclusion 15. In the result the bail applications are allowed. It is needless to mention that there is an absence of a proximal nexus between the petitioners and the alleged offences. In the considered view of this Court, therefore, detention of the petitioners in custody, appears to be unjustified. Conclusion 15. In the result the bail applications are allowed. Let the petitioners be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Court below may deem and fit proper to impose including the following conditions;- (i) They shall deposit their passports if any in the Court below at that time of their release. (ii) They shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below without obtaining leave. (iii) . They shall make themselves available as and when required by the IO. (iv) . They shall appear before the Court below on each date of posting of the case without seeking representation through counsel. 16. The BLAPLs are accordingly disposed of.