Himachal Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 August, 2025
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, Sushil Kukreja
( 2025:HHC:26852 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MP (M) No. 485 of 2025
Reserved on: 01.08.2025
Decided on: 08.08.2025
Abhishek Sharma ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria and Mr. Ankush Thakur,
Deputy Advocates General.
____________________________________________________
Sushil Kukreja, Judge
The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short
“BNSS”) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 120 of 2023, dated
24.09.2023, under Sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (for
short “IPC“), read with Section 5 of the HP Protection of Interest of
Depositors Act, 1999 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, registered at Police Station
Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
2 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are
that on the basis of written complaint made by one Shri Arun Singh
.
Guleria (complainant) on 24.09.2023, a case was registered at Police
Station Palampur, District Kangra, HP. It was alleged in the said
complaint that a group of individuals, including Subhash Sharma, Hem
Raj, Sukhdev (residents of Mandi), Abhishek Sharma (resident of Una),
petitioner herein and Milan Garg, (resident of Meerut, UP), engaged in
fraudulent activities related to crypto-currency H.P. On the advice of
accused Subhash Sharma, the complainant alongwith others had
invested in a website, i.e., www.voscrow.io, which was owned by
accused Subhash Sharma alongwith Milan Garg and in lieu of their
investments, virtual currency was provided through the website.
Accused Subhash Sharma alongwith promoters Sukh Dev Thakur and
petitioner Abhishek Sharma, allegedly cheated the general public
through websites, like Voscrow and Hypenext. During the period
between 2019-2020, the aforesaid persons promised the individuals to
double their money and such promises continued till 2021 and during
that period, some individuals received distributions of funds against
their investments, which led to increase in the investments, resultantly
many people invested. On 25.12.2021, the allocations were halted by
Subhash Sharma and later on, he assured that the allocations would
resume soon. Subsequently, Subhash Sharma tied-up with Hypenext,
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
3 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
which was owned by Milan Garg and on being persuaded, the people
invested/reinvested in Hypenext again and they also received partial
.
funds against their investments, which practice continued till 2022.
Thereafter, due to technical issues, the company requested five
months’ time for payment and qua which, through a video, Subhash
Sharma and Milan Garg informed the entire community. In total, the
amount involved was Rs.18 Crores and they acknowledged and
promised to activate new IDs on 8th August, 2023 at Aglobal.io,
however, neither his (complainant) community, nor he received any
money. Hence, it is alleged that Milan Garg, Subhash Sharma,
Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur and petitioner Abhishek Sharma defrauded
the people by creating fake website and it was a well-planned
conspiracy.
3. As per the FIR, the accused persons were involved in
fraudulent activities related to crypto-currency and they enticed the
people to invest substantial amount(s), promising high returns, which
resulted in a collective loss of Rs.18 crores to the complainant and his
associates. On 26.09.2023 a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was
constituted, which was headed by DIG of Northern Range,
Dharamshala, for investigating various crypto-currency related fraud
cases across the State. It was unearthed that the modus operandi of
the alleged fraud involved alluring individuals with promise of high
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
4 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
returns on crypto-currency investments, creating a network of
investors, who recruited others, manipulating crypto-currency prices
.
and ultimately causing financial loss to the victims. It was further
unearthed that the accused persons used a combination of
misinformation, deception and threats to maintain control over their
scheme and continued extracting money from unsuspecting investors.
4. During investigation it was revealed that accused Sukhdev
Thakur played a pivotal role in introducing petitioner Abhishek Sharma
as a new member to actively promote the Korvio crypto platform. On
11.08.2018, petitioner officially registered on the multi-level marketing
software, acquiring the distinctive ID-174152. Thereafter, the petitioner
orchestrated gatherings in various locations like Mandi, Kullu, Baddi,
Chandigarh, Una, Hamirpur, Palampur etc. During these events, the
petitioner took centre stage, managing and anchoring programs where
he delivered speeches rife with fabricated and exaggerated content.
Petitioner Abhishek went to great lengths to assert that the price of the
Korvio Coin was organically increasing based on demand. However, in
reality, the price was manipulated according to their whims. They
falsely asserted that once the coin reached a certain threshold, its
value would never drop below $10. Investigation further revealed that
exploiting the trust of depositors, the accused persons encouraged
them to bring in family, friends and associates into the Korvio Coin
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
5 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
scheme. When investors sought withdrawals for the coins they held,
petitioner Abhishek devised a deceptive strategy. He instructed
.
investors to activate new IDs by using their coins and to collect case
from these new joiners against the coins utilized for the activation of
those IDs. This calculated misdirection perpetuated the fraudulent
scheme, furthering the financial harm inflicted upon unsuspecting
investors. On 16.08.2021, petitioner Abhishek made a significant
announcement regarding the closure of Korvio Coin associated with
Voscrow Company. It was revealed that all the coins assets, previously
held by investors under the name Korvio were being transferred to a
new company named “DGT”. Simultaneously, a novel plan was
introduced to entice investors to stake the newly introduced coin, DGT.
According to this plan, investors were promised doubling of their
staked coins within one year time frame, with coins initially staked at
the prevailing rate of $10. The accused orchestrated a deliberate
reduction in the price of the DGT coin, bringing it down to less than $2.
This maneuver executed by petitioner Abhishek was done with a
clandestine agreement. By collecting proceeds from investors at the
rate of $10 and subsequently reducing the coin’s value to a mere 10
paise, they sought to exploit the significant difference, thereby
depriving unsuspecting investors of their hard earned money. This
intentional and deceptive manipulation left the general public,
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
6 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
particularly investors, severely deceived and financially harmed.
Consequently, on 28.10.2023 petitioner Abhishek Sharma was
.
arrested.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has no role in the instant case and a false case has been
foisted against him. He further contended that that there is inordinate
delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the right of speedy trial
of the petitioner as he is in custody since 28.10.2023 and the trial in the
case is not likely to be concluded in near future and keeping in view the
fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and
nine months, he deserves to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited
period.
6. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General
contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the
successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change
in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.
7. Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application
filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a bail
application being Cr. MP (M) No. 1316 of 2024 before this Court,
seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated
24.08.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred bail application
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
7 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
being Cr. MP (M) No. 2546 of 2024 before this Court, which was
dismissed, as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh at an appropriate
.
stage, vide order dated 12.12.2024.
8. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive
bail application comes before the Court, the Court would be very
conscious while considering the same. As held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao,
AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained
by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused,
which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application.
The Court should not pass the order of releasing the accused on bail in
successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change
between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change
during the period between two applications, which would entitle the
accused for bail.
9. In State of M.P vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 Hon’ble
Supreme Court categorically considered that when there are no
changed circumstances, the successive bail application is nothing but
review of the earlier application which cannot be maintainable. The
relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
“8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the
rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc.
case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5.6.2000 has not been
denied by the respondent. It is true that successive
bail applications are permissible under the changed::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
8 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )circumstances. But without the change in the
circumstances the second application would be
deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment
which is not permissible under criminal law as has.
been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v.
Harbhajan Singh Bajwa ((2001) 1 SCC 169) and
various other judgments.”
10. In State of Tamilnadu vs. S.A.Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“9. When a learned Single Judge of the same Court had
denied bail to the respondent for certain reasonsand that order was unsuccessfully challenged
before the appellate forum, without there being any
major change of circumstances, another fresh
application should not have been dealt with within a
short span of time unless there were valid groundsgiving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the
principles of res judicata are not applicable to bailapplications, but the repeated filing of the bail
applications without there being any change of
circumstances would lead to bad precedents.”
11. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar,vs Rajesh Ranjan
(2004) 7SCC 528 Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“20. “Before concluding, we must note though an
accused has a right to make successive applications
for grant of bail, the Court entertaining such
subsequent bail applications has a duty to considerthe reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail
applications were rejected. In such cases, the Court
also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds
which persuade it to take a view different from theone taken in the earlier applications……….”
12. In Virupakshappa Gouda & another vs. State of
Karnataka and another (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406 Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that:
“12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial
Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the
factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts
to change of circumstance. Needless to Say, filing of
the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the
allegations made by the prosecution. On the
contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
9 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )after due investigation the investigating agency,
having found materials, has placed the charge-
sheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further
demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained.
absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants
had moved the special leave petition before this
Court for grant of bail and the same was not
entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application
was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge afterfiling of the charge-sheet which was challenged in
the High Court and that had travelled to this Court.
These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note
of by the learned trial Judge……….”
13. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments indicates that
successive bail applications are permissible under the changed
circumstances, but the change of circumstances must be substantial
one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely
cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the
change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be
deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection order, which is not
permissible under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail
applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds
on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the
fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and
consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different
from the one taken in the earlier application. There must be change in
the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being
interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete.
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
10 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
14. This Court, confronted Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel
for the petitioner, to point out the change in circumstances after the
.
dismissal of the earlier bail application. However, except the contention
that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon
the right of speedy trial of the petitioner as he is in custody since
28.10.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has failed to point
out any substantial change in the circumstances after the dismissal of
his earlier bail application, which would entitle the petitioner for release
on bail.
15. In the case on hand, as per the material available on
record, thousands of investors have fallen victims to the fraudulent
scheme, as more than 80,000/- investors have contributed over the
past four years with a total investment of around Rs. 2,000/- crores and
there is an estimated loss of Rs. 500/- crores to the investors. The
investigation, prima facie, revealed that the petitioner was the close
associate of the main accused Subhash Sharma and was one of the
the top liners in the chain and the main accused Subhash Sharma had
absconded and moved out of India.
16. Although, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees
speedy trial and an under trial prisoner cannot be detained in
jail/custody for an indefinite period, but, mere period of incarceration or
the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
11 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail, as the petitioner is prima
facie found involved in an economic offence of huge magnitude. In
.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and another,
(2019) 9 SCC 165 the Supreme Court has held that stringent view
should be taken by the Court towards grant of bail with respect to
economic offences. Paragraphs 24 is extracted hereunder:-
” 24. At this juncture, it must be noted that even as per Section
212(7) of the Companies Act, the limitation under Section 212(6)
with respect to grant of bail is in addition to those already provided in
CrPC. Thus, it is necessary to advert to the principles governing the
grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC. Specifically, heed must bepaid to the stringent view taken by this Court towards grant of bail
with respect of economic offences. In this regard, it is pertinent torefer to the following observations of this Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013)
3 SCC (Cri) 552] : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35)
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Theeconomic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to thefinancial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence ofthe accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations.”
This Court has adopted this position in several decisions, including
Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement [Gautam Kundu v.
Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri)
603] and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar [State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar,
(2017) 13 SCC 751 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 771] . Thus, it is evident that
the above factors must be taken into account while determining
whether bail should be granted in cases involving grave economic
offences.
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
12 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
17. The Supreme Court in the case reported in Chenna
Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
.
(2007) 1 SCC 242 has held that when the gravity of offence alleged is
severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely
to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioner to be
enlarged on bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads
as under:-
“16………………………. It is true that when the gravity of the offence
alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the
trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself orconjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail.
Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken intoconsideration while deciding the question of grant of bail.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit
Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 the Supreme Court
has reiterated that where there is seriousness of the offence, the mere
fact that the accused is languishing in jail during trial should not be the
concern of the courts. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:-
“8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High
Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a
mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that
the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the
seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail
for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We
are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail
in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in
the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar.”
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
13 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
19. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of
India and Others, (2023) 12 SCC 1, it has been categorically held as
.
under:
“324. Section 436A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome beneficial
provision, which is for effectuating the right of speedy trialguaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely
specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be
concluded, failing which, the accused ought not to be detained
further. Indeed, Section 436A of the 1973 Code also contemplates
that the relief under this provision cannot be granted mechanically. Itis still within the discretion of the Court, unlike the default bail under
Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Under Section 436A of the 1973
Code, however, the Court is required to consider the relief on case-
to-case basis. As the proviso therein itself recognises that, in a given
case, the detention can be continued by the Court even longer thanone-half of the period, for which, reasons are to be recorded by it in
writing and also by imposing such terms and conditions so as toensure that after release, the accused makes himself/herself
available for expeditious completion of the trial.”
20. In a recent decision in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant
Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1486, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
under:-
“21. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the trial is likely to take long time and the appellant would be
incarcerated for indefinite period, is also not well founded in view of
the observations made by this Court in case of Vijay Madanlal
(supra). On the application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, it has been categorically held therein that: –
“419. Section 436A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome beneficial
provision, which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely
specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be
concluded, failing which, the accused ought not to be detained
further. Indeed, Section 436A of the 1973 Code also
contemplates that the relief under this provision cannot be
granted mechanically. It is still within the discretion of the Court,
unlike the default bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Under
Section 436A of the 1973 Code, however, the Court is required to
consider the relief on case-to-case basis. As the proviso therein
itself recognises that, in a given case, the detention can be
continued by the Court even longer than one-half of the period,::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
14 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )for which, reasons are to be recorded by it in writing and also by
imposing such terms and conditions so as to ensure that after
release, the accused makes himself/herself available for
expeditious completion of the trial.”
.
22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions,
the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the
development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in
this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra),
State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai. This court taking a
serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as
back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji
Porwal as under:–
“5… The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought
to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment
upon passions being aroused. An economic offence iscommitted with cool calculation and deliberate design with an
eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the
community. A disregard for the interest of the community can
be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faithof the community in the system to administer justice in an
even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the
quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eyeunmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and
National Interest….”
21. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (2004) 7 SCC
528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav
and another) has held that three years incarceration would not itself
entitle the accused-applicant to be released on bail nor the fact that the
trial is not likelihood to be concluded in near future would be sufficient
for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail considering the gravity of
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
15 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
offence. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment, which is relevant, is
extracted hereunder:-
.
“14. We have already noticed from the arguments of learned counsel
for the appellant that the present accused had earlier made seven
applications for grant of bail which were rejected by the High Court
and some such rejections have been affirmed by this Court also. It isseen from the records that when the fifth application for grant of bail
was allowed by the High Court, the same was challenged before this
Court and this Court accepted the said challenge by allowing the
appeal filed by the Union of India and another and cancelled the bail
granted by the High Court as per the order of this Court made in
Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2001 dated 25-7-2001 [Rajesh Ranjan v.
State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 222] . While cancelling the said bail this
Court specifically held that the fact that the present accused was in
custody for more than one year (at that time) and the further fact that
while rejecting an earlier application, the High Court had given liberty
to renew the bail application in future, were not grounds envisagedunder Section 437(1)(i) of the Code. This Court also in specific terms
held that the condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua
non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the
impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period
of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the
unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds
sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that theaccused stands charged of offences punishable with life
imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion,
the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of
incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle theaccused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not
likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupledwith the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the
appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe
and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the
accused during the period he was on bail.”
22. Thus when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe,
mere long incarceration in jail as under-trial is not sufficient ground to
enlarge an accused on bail if the facts & circumstances of the case
and interest of the society do not warrant for enlarging the accused-
applicant on bail. The present is an economic offence. The economic
offences are considered grave offences as they affect the economy of
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS
16 ( 2025:HHC:26852 )
the country and such offences are to be viewed seriously. In such type
of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter
.
alia, the larger interest of public and the State. The nature and
seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are
always important considerations in such cases.
23. Thus, in view of the above stated authoritative
pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court, considering the,
prima facie involvement of the petitioner in commission of the
economic offence of huge magnitude in furtherance of the criminal
conspiracy, merely because of the fact that the petitioner is in custody
for the last about one year and nine months, this Court does not deem
it appropriate to enlarge him on bail at this stage.
24. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail
application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
25. Before parting with this order, it is hereby clarified that the
aforesaid observations made in this order have been made only for the
purpose of considering the present bail application. Therefore, the
same shall not come in the way of the trial court at the time of the trial
and the trial Court concerned shall not be influenced by the
observations made hereinabove.
( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
08th August, 2025
(raman)
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2025 21:36:20 :::CIS