Akash Sharma vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Akash Sharma, sought regular bail in FIR No. 0267 dated May 17, 2022, registered under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The FIR was based on a complaint alleging fraudulent inducement through a mobile application named 'WinMoney', which was presented as government-approved and dealing in chit funds. The complainant invested between Rs. 12 to 15 lacs, received commissions initially, but later found payments stopped and accounts blocked. The petitioner was arrested on June 16, 2022, and claims to have been falsely implicated, stating he was not named in the FIR and only facilitated money transfers using the Binance App for the prime accused, Sayyed Ali. The State's status report detailed suspicious transactions, including Rs. 49,999/- from a victim's account to Amulya Pardhan, then to Sayed Ali, and finally to the petitioner's account, which was converted into USDT coins. The petitioner allegedly used eight bank accounts for these transactions, with a total transaction volume of approximately Rs. 156 crore, causing significant tax evasion.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for regular bail. The Court considered the nature of the accusations, the evidence, the severity of the punishment, the character of the accused, and the facts and circumstances of the case, including the larger interest of the public/State. It reiterated the principle that economic offences, often involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge losses of public funds, require a different approach and are to be taken seriously as they affect the country's economy. While acknowledging that another co-accused, Kuldeep Patel, was granted bail, the Court distinguished the present case by noting the direct and serious allegations against the petitioner involving the conversion of approximately Rs. 156 crore into USDT coins in connivance with the main accused, Sayed Ali, who is yet to be arrested. The Court found that granting bail at this stage could create hurdles in the further investigation. Therefore, considering the rival submissions, the seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the offence, and the attributed role of the petitioner, the Court held that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the nature and gravity of the economic offences alleged against him? The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and his role was limited to transferring money via the Binance App for the prime accused, Sayyed Ali. He contended that the allegations pertained to economic offences triable by a Magistrate and that he had been in custody since June 16, 2022. He also highlighted that another co-accused, Kuldeep Patel, with similar allegations, was granted bail. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the huge amount involved (approximately Rs. 156 crore) and the petitioner's role in converting defrauded amounts into USDT coins through multiple accounts, leading to substantial tax evasion. The State argued that the petitioner's involvement in 'hawala' transactions and receipt of commission demonstrated his active participation in the economic offence, and his release could hinder the ongoing investigation, especially since the main accused, Sayed Ali, was still at large. The State also pointed to threats received by the complainant, leading to a separate FIR.