Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras High Court

Innocence is Presumed Until Proven Guilty; Bail Not to be Denied in Economic Offences: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Embezzlement Case Involving Fake Websites and Cryptocurrency

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, presided over by Justice Sushil Kukreja, has granted bail to the accused in a significant case involving economic offenses related to fraudulent investment schemes and the creation of fake websites. The decision in Cr. MP (M) No. 415 of 2024 along with Cr. MPs (M) No. 603 & 613/2024 was pronounced, emphasizing the principle that “every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.”

The petitioners, Amit Pradeep Singh and others, were charged under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, along with the Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1999, and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. They sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, following their arrest connected to FIR No. 120/2023.

The case revolved around the operation of fake websites and virtual currency schemes, with allegations that the accused had embezzled a significant amount of money. The prosecution alleged that the accused used these websites to dupe investors, promising doubled returns on investments. The defense argued for bail on the grounds that the investigation was complete and the prolonged incarceration of the accused served no purpose.

Justice Kukreja delved into the principles governing the grant of bail in economic offenses, citing various precedents including Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta Vs. CBI. The Court highlighted that bail is a rule and jail an exception, emphasizing the presumption of innocence. The decision was shaped by considering the gravity of the offense, the completion of the investigation, and the filing of the chargesheet, coupled with the unlikelihood of an immediate trial.

The Court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to stringent conditions such as personal bonds, sureties, mandatory appearances, restrictions on engaging in cryptocurrency business, property restrictions, and surrender of passports. The Court stated, “It is neither punitive nor preventive, but to secure the presence of the accused at the trial.”

Date of Decision: April 09, 2024.

Amit Pradeep Singh and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,

Latest Legal News