Sumit Verma vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The High Court rejected the bail application of the applicant, Sumit Verma. The Court considered the report of the complainant and the modus operandi of the offense, which involved alluring the complainant to deposit GST amounts into various bank accounts. The Court found that the manner in which the offense was committed did not make it a fit case for granting bail. The Court did not explicitly address the applicant's contention that he merely provided premises on rent or the argument that the main culprits were at large, focusing instead on the gravity of the alleged fraud and the method of its execution. The ratio decidendi appears to be that the alleged facilitation of a fraudulent scheme, particularly involving the diversion of funds through multiple accounts, is a serious matter that weighs against granting bail.

Facts

The applicant, Sumit Verma, is seeking bail in a case involving alleged fraud under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleges that the complainant was induced to invest in a trade, promising high returns. After initial deposits, the complainant was asked to deposit Goods and Services Tax (GST) on purported profits. Screenshots were sent showing increasing profits, leading to further GST deposits. Ultimately, the complainant discovered the company did not exist and he had been deceived. The GST amounts were deposited into various bank accounts. Investigations revealed that the applicant allegedly opened the company and employed individuals, promising them a percentage of the funds received, thereby facilitating the fraud.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, who allegedly provided premises on rent for the fraudulent operation, is entitled to bail when the main culprits are reportedly at large? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the applicant's involvement, as alleged by the prosecution, warrants continued detention, considering he claims to have merely rented out premises? Contentions of the Applicant: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is not a main culprit and has only provided premises on rent. He contended that the applicant has been in jail since January 29, 2020, and should be enlarged on bail, especially since the primary offenders are still at large. Contentions of the Respondent (State and Objector): The State Counsel and the counsel for the objector opposed the bail application. The State Counsel referred to the First Information Report (FIR) statement of the complainant and the memorandum statements of the applicant.