Himachal Pradesh High Court
Milan Garg vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 2926 of 2024
Reserved on: 18.07.2025
Decided on: 01.08.2025
Milan Garg
….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. Raviraj Paramane (through video
conferencing) & Mr. Vinod Chauhan,
Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. I.N.Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda,
Additional Advocate General and Mr.Ankush
Thakur, Deputy Advocate 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
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, registered at Police Station
Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
.
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)
and Milan Garg,petitioner herein (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 petitioner Milan Garg and in lieu
of their investments, virtual currency was provided through the website.
Accused Subhash Sharma alongwith promoters Sukh Dev Thakur and
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
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
Subhash Sharma and later on, he assured that the allocations would
resume soon. Subsequently, Subhash Sharma tied-up with Hypenext,
.
which was owned by the petitioner 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, both
Subhash Sharma as well as the petitioner informed the entire
community. In total, the amount involved was Rs.18 Crores and they
acknowledged and promised to activate new IDs on 8 th August, 2023 at
Aglobal.io, however, neither his (complainant) community, nor he
received any money. Hence, it is alleged that petitioner Milan Garg,
Subhash Sharma, Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur and 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
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
cases across the State. It was unearthed that the modus operandi of
the alleged fraud involved alluring individuals with promise of high
.
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.
The petitioner was arrested in this case on 13.07.2024 at NSCBI
Airport Kolkata.
4. During the course of investigation, it has come on record
that in the year 2018, accused Subhash Sharma and his associates
had initiated a coordinated campaign of public inducement through
seminars, wherein they introduced the concept of digital currencies,
particularly Bitcoin and gradually diverted attention towards their own
crypto-currency scheme under the name Korvio Community.
Subsequent to the launch of Korvio platform, the accused persons,
namely Subhash Sharma, Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur and others,
initiated a widespread network-driven promotion campaign by
motivating individuals to invest and further recruit others under a binary
referral scheme and new investors were registered through unique IDs
requiring KRO Coins, which were either procured directly from the top-
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
line promoters or converted from BTC. In the year 2021, amidst rising
public complaints, the accused re-branded the platform from Korvio to
.
Voscrow and thereafter to DGT Coin under a newly created domain
dgtswap. com, citing a shift from a private to a public block-chain, due
to regulatory pressure. After the fraudulent activities under the banner
of Korvio and DGT Coin, accused Subhash Sharma organized a large
community meeting in August, 2021 at Radisson Hotel, Zirakpur,
attended by approximately 300 to 500 individuals, each of whom was
charged Rs.2,000/- as an entry fee. In the said event, accused persons
Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg (petitioner) were the primary
speakers and the petitioner explained that DGT Coin would now be
swapped with BNB (Binance Coin) and that DGT would soon be listed
on crypto-currency exchanges, thereby giving a false impression of
legitimacy and luring the participants with promises of high returns.
5. The investigation further revealed that through the
successive roll-out of these fraudulent platforms Korvio, DGT,
Hypenext, Bitpaid Pro and Aglobal, the accused persons created and
controlled a custom-built MLM software designed to manipulate token
prices, fabricate digital coin values and systematically misled the
public. The said software facilitated registration of over 2.48 lakh
individuals and the accused persons collectively defrauded the public
to the tune of Rs.2,000 Crores, through fake crypto-currencies and
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
private MLM tokens, operating entirely outside any lawful regulatory
framework. On 02.10.2023, search operations were conducted at the
.
residential premises of accused persons Hem Raj and Sukhdev
Thakur, pursuant to which, both these accused persons were arrested
and on their disclosure statements, substantial recoveries were
effected and multiple crypto-currency wallets belonging to these
accused persons were identified, which contained various virtual coins
suspected to be proceeds of crime. In order to secure these digital
assets, the official correspondence was initiated with Binance
Exchange. Upon successful liaison, a secured custodial crypto wallet
was created by the investigating team and thereafter, the seized digital
assets were transferred to the aforesaid secured wallet. Forensic
examination of the mobile phones of accused persons further led to
recovery of incriminating WhatsApp chats and communications, which
directly pertained to the planning, coordination and execution of the
fraudulent crypto currency-based scheme. The investigation also
revealed that this case was the first and largest of its kind in the State
of Himachal Pradesh, involving an unprecedented estimated
investment of over Rs.2,000/- crores from more than 80,000 victims
and an assessed actual financial loss of Rs.500 crores.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has no role in the instant case and a false case has been
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
foisted against him. He further contended that the petitioner was
neither Director, Promoter, investor nor associated with Karvio, DGT
.
coin, Hypenext, BTP. He also contended that perusal of the charge-
sheet reveals that there was no complaint against the petitioner qua his
instigation for investment and there was no financial transaction of the
petitioner, which could link him with the alleged offence. Further
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during house
search of the petitioner as well as tracking of his bank accounts,
seizure of his mobile phones and other devices, nothing incriminating
was found against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner next
contended that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the
petitioner at the time of his arrest, which violated his right under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, on this ground alone,
he is entitled to be released on bail. He also contended that some of
the identically placed co-accused persons have been granted bail by
this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioner may also be
released on bail. He lastly contended that since the investigation in the
case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner,
therefore, he may be released on bail.
7. Conversely, the learned Senior Additional Advocate
General contended that the substantial gains, which were acquired by
the petitioner and other accused persons i.e., Subhash Sharma
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
Hemraj, Sukhdev, Abhishek Sharma, Sunil Kumar, etc., through the
fraudulent scheme of crypto-currency, were invested in acquiring the
.
valuable assets, i.e., movable and immovable properties at different
places. He further contended that the instant is a case of huge
economic offence and the investigation reveals the active involvement
of the petitioner in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the
grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the petitioner. He also
submitted that case of the petitioner is not identically placed with co-
accused persons as is being claimed by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present bail application, being
devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have given my considered thought to the rival contentions
raised and also gone through the police file as well as the status
report(s) filed by the prosecution.
9. The economic offences are considered grave offences as
they affect the economy of the country as a whole and such offences
having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund
are to be viewed seriously. The economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the community. 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
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always
important considerations in such a case and those aspects must
.
squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail
applications. No doubt at the stage of granting bail, detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on merits of the
case need not be taken but the order must reflect the reasons for
arriving at a, prima facie, conclusion as to why bail is being granted or
refused, particularly when the accused-petitioner is charged with the
commission of economic offences.
10. In the case on hand, as per the material available on
record, thousands of investors have fallen victims to this 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. The main accused Subhash Sharma had
absconded and moved out of India. The petitioner was holding a
unique position and he had exclusive access to the Pancake Swap
platform, which was essential for transferring and liquidating the Bitpaid
(BTP) in the wallets. Perusal of the record revealed that the group
action of the petitioner was crucial for recovering funds as he had
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
unique ability to perform these actions which underscores his central
role not only in the fraudulent scheme, but also in the recovery process.
.
The recoverable assets from these wallets were directly tied to the
petitioner’s exclusive control and technical capabilities and his
involvement was pivotal for both the ongoing investigation and the
potential recovery of these assets. The investigation further revealed
that a substantial amount of Rs.450 crores is pending recovery from
the petitioner’s fraudulent schemes, which included losses from both
the Hypenext and Aglobal platforms and the total value of the Bitpaid in
INR is approximately Rs.18,640,790.56, which amount is recoverable
as the petitioner was the sole individual capable of transferring or
liquidating the crypto-currency through Pancake swap.
11. The law relating to bail in a case of economic offences is
more or less settled in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. In the case of State of Gujrat vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal,
reported in AIR 1987 SC 1321, it is held as follows:-
“5. xx xx xx The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to
book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed 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 faith of the Community
in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white
colour crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage
done to the National Economy and National Interest”.
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 in paras 34 and 35 in
.
respect of granting bail in economic offences having deep rooted
conspiracy and large public money involved, has held as under:-
“34. 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 theeconomy of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in supportthereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused, circumstanceswhich are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
other similar considerations.”
13. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7
SCC 466, the Supreme Court has observed that the alarming rise in
white collar crimes has affected the fiber of country’s economic
structure. Economic offences have serious repercussions on the
development of the country as a whole. Economic offences constitute
a class apart and a different approach has to be adopted in the matter
of bail. Paras 23 to 25 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted here-in-
below:-
“23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been
seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has
affected the fibre of the country’s economic structure.
Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious
repercussions on the development of the country as a
whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )[(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court,
while considering a request of the prosecution for
adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as
under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) “5. … The entire community.
is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder
may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions
being aroused. An economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye onpersonal 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 faith of the community in the system to administer
justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticismfrom the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a
permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the
national economy and national interest.”
24. 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 of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind
that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has
used the words “reasonable grounds for believing”
instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing
with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whetherthere is a genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence
in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage,to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to
be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies
and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be
viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country.”
14. In a judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar Vs.
Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, it has been held that while
considering the bail involving socio-economic offences stringent
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
parameters should be applied. Paras 8 & 9 of the said judgment are
extracted hereunder:-
.
“”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 custodyfor 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 inthe State of Bihar.
9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged
with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged
to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is alleged that therespondent-accused is involved in tampering with the
answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with theexamination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination,
2016 and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter
and other students of Vishnu Rai College, in the said
examination. During the investigation when a search
team raided his place, various documents relating toproperty and land to the tune of Rs 2.57 crores were
recovered besides Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this,
allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of
various students, letterheads and rubber stamps ofseveral authorities, admit cards, illegal firearm, etc. were
found which Page No.# 7/10 establishes a prima facie
case against the respondent. The allegations against therespondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected
from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also
conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved,
may jeopardise the credibility of the education system ofthe State of Bihar.”
15. 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:-
“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::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )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 aliasBachcha 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 is
committed with cool calculation and deliberate
r design with an eye on personal profit regardlessof 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 faith of the community in the system to
administer justice in an even-handed mannerwithout fear of criticism from the quarters which
view white collar crimes with a permissive eye
unmindful of the damage done to the National
Economy and National Interest…”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as P.
Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24,
while dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of
granting anticipatory bail should be sparingly exercised in economic
offences. The relevant extract of this judgment is reproduced as
under:-
“77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held as under:
(SCC p.386, para 19)
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )“19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a
serious offence are required to be satisfied and
further while granting such relief, the court must
record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can.
be granted only in exceptional circumstances
where the court is prima facie of the view that the
applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime
and would not misuse his liberty.
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases
of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a
different class as they affect the economic fabric of the
society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar
Jain ((1998) 2 SCC 105), it was held that in economic
offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
XXX XXX XXX
83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful information and also
the materials which might have been concealed. Success
in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows
that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of
anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would
definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having
regard to the materials said to have been collected by the
respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the
stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not
a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many
stages of “placement”, “layering i.e. funds moved to other
institutions to conceal origin” and “interrogation i.e. funds
used to acquire various assets”, it requires systematic and
analysed investigation which would be of great
advantage. As held in Anil Sharma, success in such
interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is
protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Section 438 CrPC is
to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case
alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand,
there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the
crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain
specific inputs from various sources, including overseas
banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued
and some response have been received by the
Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations
and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the
investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in
the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse
the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the
note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
find any ground warranting interference with the impugned
order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant
will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for
.
exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the
appellant.”
17. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Officer vs. Nittin
Johari and another, (2019) 9 SCC 165, wherein, it set aside the order
of High Court of Delhi granting bail to the accused therein and held
that:- r
24.”…it is necessary to advert to the principles governing the
grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Specifically, heed
must be paid to the stringent view taken by this Court towards
grant of bail with respect of economic offences…..”
18. Hence, in view of the above stated authoritative
pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court as the petitioner is,
prima facie, alleged to be involved in the economic offences of huge
magnitude, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time
of his arrest, which violated his right under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, on this ground alone, he is entitled
to be released on bail. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for
the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
576, Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC
254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2025)5 SCC 799.
.
20. In Pankaj Bansal‘s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed of the grounds for such arrest. Relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced as under:-
“38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the
Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested
shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the
fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the modeof conveying information of the grounds of arrest must
necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intendedpurpose………….”
21. In Prabir Purkayastha‘s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest
flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any
infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of
arrest and remand. Para-22 of the judgment reads as under:-
“22. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows
from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any
infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process
of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been
filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the
unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the
accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the
accused.”
22. In Vihaan Kumar’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
that the requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest
is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1). Relevant portion of the
aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
“26.1.The requirement of informing a person arrested of
grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1);
26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided.
to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge
of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and
communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language
which he understands. The mode and method of communication
must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is
achieved.”
23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid authoritative
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the right
to be informed about the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right under
Articles 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any violation thereof
would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. In the case on hand,
perusal of the record reveals that grounds of arrest were duly
communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and in this
respect, arrest memo has also been prepared. On the arrest memo,
the petitioner had also written in his own handwriting that he wanted to
inform his Advocate Jaideep about his arrest and his Advocate
Jaideep was also informed on telephone. During the pendency of the
instant bail application, Inspector Kamlesh Kumar, Cyber Crime, Police
Station, Northern Range, Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP filed his
affidavit before this court wherein he specifically stated that on
16.07.2024, when an application seeking transit custody of the
petitioner was moved before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barrackpore, West Bengal, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner had personally approached him and he had
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
duly provided him with a copy of the said transit remand application,
which fact was clearly recorded in the case diary dated 16.07.2024
.
and after receiving the said copy, the learned counsel for the petitioner
filed a bail application opposing the prayer for transit remand. He
further submitted that grounds of arrest were duly conveyed to the
petitioner through transit remand application dated 16.07.2024,
wherein the specific role of the petitioner was clearly mentioned and
the transit remand application itself contained the grounds of arrest of
the petitioner, which were clearly stated and conveyed. The petitioner
was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, West Bangal and an
application was moved for his five days’ transit remand. The aforesaid
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore also
observed in its order that “the Police Officer of HP Police has complied
with the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in substance. Substance
of accusation is well found in police papers and the accused person is
made acquainted with the same.” The bail application of the petitioner
before the said Court was rejected and transit remand was allowed
with respect to petitioner/accused Milan Garg for five days. Therefore,
in view of the material available on record, it cannot be said that the
grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time
of his arrest. Hence, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that
some of the identically placed co-accused persons have been granted
bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioner may also
be released on bail.
25. It is a settled law that parity cannot be the sole ground for
grant of bail. It is one of the grounds for consideration of the question
of bail. There is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily
be granted to the co-accused, where another co- accused has been
granted bail. Before considering the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner, a brief recapitulation of the law on the aspect of
parity may be apposite. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai
Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that the Court cannot exercise it powers in a capricious
manner and before granting bail on the ground of parity, the Court
must focus upon the role of the accused and his position in relation to
the incident and victims is also of utmost importance. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment read as under:-
“25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by
the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law.
They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of
the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :(2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious
manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before
granting bail.
This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17)
.
“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a
stand was taken that the second respondent was a
history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High
Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciouslyrecord that the second respondent is entitled to be
admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated
with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity
and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v.
State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly
exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as amatter of fact it has been brought on record that the
second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect
of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has
failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has
to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by thisCourt would tantamount to travesty of justice, and
accordingly we set it aside.
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the
manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity.
By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli
v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai
Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj
2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta
Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh
Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-
2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020
SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court
recorded) that he was “assigned similar role of armed with stick
(sic)”. Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground
that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that
Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were
armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has
evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by
parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the
accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted
bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine
whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been
established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to
the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the
victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on
the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above,
which again cannot pass muster under the law. “
26. Similar reiteration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can
be found in Tarun Kumar‘s case (supra), wherein it has been held that
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )parity is not the law, rather the principle of parity is based on the
guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined under Article 14 of
.
the Constitution of India and while applying the principle of parity, the
Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose
application is under consideration. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced as under:-
“18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant
bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who
were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail,
also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the
law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required tofocus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is
under consideration …………………”
19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the
guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14
of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has
been committed in favour of any individual or a group of
individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum,
others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior
court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality
or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to
perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit
or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority
or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons
could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of
such wrong decision.”
27. Tested on the touch stone of above principles, the
petitioners’ submission premised on the ground of parity, is found to be
devoid of merit. The perusal of record, prima facie, reveals that the
petitioner was one of the kingpins of the scheme, whereas the co-
accused persons who have been enlarged on bail, are merely
investors. After going through the allegations as leveled against the co-
accused persons who have been released on bail vis-à-vis allegations
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
against the petitioners, this court finds that the case of the petitioner
stands on a different footing and therefore the principle of parity for
.
grant of bail would not be applicable to him. Thus, the petitioner cannot
claim parity with the co-accused persons for grant of bail.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that
since the investigation in the case is complete and nothing is to be
recovered from the petitioner, therefore, he may be released on bail.
However, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be accepted keeping in view the nature of economic offence
having deep-rooted conspiracy involving huge loss of public funds. In
my opinion, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail
at this stage as 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.
29. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions raised, the nature of accusations, the punishment
prescribed for the offences under which charge sheet has been
submitted, prima facie, the role played by the petitioner in the entire
episode, the impact of such economic offences on the society,
particularly on the common man who had been allured to make
investments, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail,
at this stage, in the larger interest of public and State.
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS
24 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )
30. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail
application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
.
31. 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
August 01, 2025
(VH)
::: Downloaded on – 01/08/2025 21:28:39 :::CIS