Umesh Verma vs. State

Held

The Court dismissed the application for bail. Regarding the medical grounds, the Court noted that the Superintendent Jail's report indicated the applicant was receiving adequate medical treatment and his condition was stable, rendering this prayer secondary to the merits. On the merits of the bail application, the Court found that the applicant indulged in the trade of cryptocurrency despite multiple public notices and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) cautioning users about the risks associated with virtual currencies. Notably, the applicant continued to accept investments even after the RBI's circular dated 06.04.2018, which prohibited regulated entities from dealing in virtual currencies. The Court also took into account that the applicant, after inducing investors, closed his office and fled to Dubai without returning the money. The Court characterized the alleged offenses as economic offenses that erode the fabric of democracy, committed with disregard for national interests and resulting in a large number of innocent investors being duped of their hard-earned money. Therefore, it was not considered appropriate to release the applicant on bail. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not on the merits or demerits of the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Umesh Verma, sought bail in FIR No. 132/2020, registered under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations are that the petitioner, along with co-accused Bharat Verma and others, ran a cryptocurrency chit fund company named Pluto Exchange. They allegedly induced complainants to invest by promising high returns of 20-30% per month and commissions for bringing in new clients. After investors deposited money, the accused allegedly closed their office in Connaught Place, Delhi, and fled to Dubai without returning the funds. The FIR was lodged by Jogender Kumar, who invested Rs. 5 Lakhs. Investigations revealed 42 other complaints, with a total investment of Rs. 2,25,02,000/- by multiple investors in the scheme. The total amount allegedly involved was Rs. 2.5 Crores.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on medical grounds, considering the medical report submitted by the Superintendent Jail indicating his condition is stable and adequate treatment is being provided? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on merits, considering the allegations of duping investors in a cryptocurrency scheme, the amount involved, and the fact that investments continued even after RBI circulars cautioning against virtual currencies? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought bail on medical grounds, which was considered and found not pressing enough for immediate release. On merits, the petitioner's counsel likely argued for bail, emphasizing his role in a gold business and potentially disputing the extent of his involvement or the fraudulent nature of the scheme. The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments on merits beyond the initial bail prayer. Respondent's Arguments: The State argued against bail, highlighting the serious allegations of economic offenses, the substantial amount of money involved (Rs. 2.5 Crores), the large number of duped investors, and the fact that the applicant continued to accept investments even after RBI circulars dated 24.12.2013, 01.02.2017, 05.12.2017, and 06.04.2018 cautioned users about the risks associated with virtual currencies and directed regulated entities to cease dealing with them.