Amit Ram Thadani vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Ram Thadani, sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 653 dated 28.12.2022, registered under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station City, Kurukshetra. The FIR was based on a complaint by Parvinder Singh, who alleged being defrauded of approximately Rs. 15,78,000/- through online investment in gold via an app called 'Honor Gold' and subsequent platforms like Meta Trade-3 and Binance. The complainant alleged that the petitioner received Rs. 3,00,000/- of this amount in his account. The petitioner claimed to be a part-time trader who sold cryptocurrency to the complainant on the Binance platform, asserting the complainant's funds were safe and retrievable after paying GST and TDS. He also offered to assist with login issues. Despite an earlier order directing the petitioner to assist the complainant in retrieving funds, a status report indicated the petitioner did not cooperate and failed to de-freeze the complainant's account as he claimed he had frozen it.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had initially assured the Court that the complainant's money was safe on the Binance platform and that he could assist in retrieving it after payment of GST and TDS. However, a status report filed by the State indicated that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigating agency and failed to assist in retrieving the disputed amount. The petitioner admitted to freezing the complainant's account but claimed he could not de-freeze it and sought more time. The Court found that the petitioner had made a false assurance to the Court and had failed to cooperate with the investigation. Considering the petitioner's conduct, the specific allegations supported by documentary evidence, and his failure to cooperate in retrieving the complainant's money, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that a petitioner who makes false assurances to the court and fails to cooperate with the investigation, especially in cases involving financial fraud, is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of online fraud and his alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation and assist in the retrieval of the complainant's funds? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was a part-time trader with no relation to other co-accused, and the complainant's cryptocurrency purchased through him was still secure on the Binance platform. He argued that the complainant could retrieve his money by logging into his account and paying applicable GST and TDS. He also stated that he had provided all transaction details and that no purpose would be served by his arrest. He further submitted that there was a significant delay in action after the FIR registration, with him only recently receiving Section 41-A notices. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State vociferously opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the petitioner was involved in online fraud. They contended that the investigation was at its initial stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for the recovery of the disputed amount and to reach a logical conclusion.