Successive Bail In Economic Offences Not A Matter Of Course; Requires Substantial Change In Circumstances: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"The Court should not pass the order of releasing the accused on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change... which would entitle the accused for bail." Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed the successive bail applications of individuals accused in a massive crypto-currency scam involving hundreds of crores.

A bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja observed that economic offences constitute a "class apart" and bail cannot be granted mechanically, especially when the accused fails to show a "substantial change" in circumstances since the rejection of earlier applications.

The petitioners, Sukh Dev and Hem Raj, were allegedly involved in a well-planned conspiracy to defraud the general public through fake crypto-currency websites like Voscrow and Hypenext. The prosecution alleged that the accused orchestrated gatherings across the state to entice investors into schemes involving 'Korvio' and 'DGT' coins, eventually causing an estimated loss of approximately Rs. 500 crores to over 80,000 investors.

The primary questions before the court were whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in a successive application. The court was called upon to determine if the completion of the investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of incarceration constituted a "substantial change in circumstances" sufficient to override the gravity of the economic crime.

Court Outlines Principles For Entertaining Successive Bail Applications

The court emphasized that while an accused has the right to make successive applications, the court must be "very conscious" while considering them. Relying on the Apex Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, the bench noted that a subsequent application can only be entertained if a "substantial change" in fact or law is established by the accused.

Justice Kukreja observed that the court should not release an accused in a successive bail application by merely establishing some "cosmetic change" between the time gap of two applications. The law requires a "drastic change" during the period between two applications to entitle the accused to bail, otherwise, it would amount to a review of the earlier judgment, which is impermissible in criminal law.

Filing Of Charge-Sheet Does Not Automatically Entitle Accused To Bail

Addressing the petitioners' argument that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet (challan) had been presented, the court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Virupakshappa Gouda vs. State of Karnataka. It noted that the filing of a charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused persons.

The bench held that the filing of a charge-sheet actually establishes that after due investigation, the agency has found sufficient material to place the accused for trial. Therefore, the mere presentation of the challan cannot be viewed as a substantial change in circumstance that would automatically warrant the grant of bail in a grave economic offence.

"Successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law."

Economic Offences Are A Class Apart Requiring Stringent Parameters

Justice Kukreja highlighted that economic offences are considered "grave offences" as they affect the economy of the country as a whole. Citing Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, the court observed that such crimes are committed with "cool calculation and deliberate design" solely with an eye on personal profit, regardless of the consequences to the community.

The court noted that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The bench emphasized that deep-rooted conspiracies involving the huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously, as they pose a significant threat to the financial health of the country.

Gravity Of Offence Outweighs Period Of Incarceration In Grave Crimes

The court rejected the plea for bail based on the length of incarceration. It held that when the gravity of the offence is severe, the mere fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future does not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The bench referred to Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav vs. State of Maharashtra to support this stance.

The bench further noted that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is not an absolute ground for bail in cases of serious economic fraud. While incarceration is a factor, it must be balanced against the nature of the accusation and the impact of the crime on the public at large and the state’s interests.

"The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book... An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community."

Socio-Economic Damage To Society Trumps Duration Of Custody

The bench took serious note of the fact that approximately 80,000 small investors allegedly lost their life savings in the fraudulent scheme. It observed that the "socio-economic damage to the society has much greater importance" than the duration the petitioners have spent in custody. The court highlighted that protecting the rights of small investors is a paramount consideration.

The court also noted that the main accused, Subhash Sharma, has absconded and fled to Dubai. Given that the petitioners were "top liners" in the chain and close associates of the main accused, the court expressed apprehension that if enlarged on bail, they might flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence and witnesses.

The High Court concluded that the petitioners were prima facie involved in an economic offence of huge magnitude involving a deep-rooted conspiracy and a total investment of around Rs. 2,000 crores. Finding no substantial change in circumstances since the previous dismissal by the High Court and the Supreme Court, the bench dismissed the bail applications.

Date of Decision: 29 June 2026