Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 2926 of 2024 Reserved on: 18.07.2025 Decided on: 01.08.2025 Milan Garg ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Raviraj Paramane (through video conferencing) & Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. I.N.Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General and Mr.Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short BNSS) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.120 of 2023, dated 24.09.2023, under Sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), read with Section 5 of the HP Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that on the basis of written complaint made by one Shri Arun Singh Guleria (complainant) on 24.09.2023, a case was registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, HP. It was alleged in the said complaint that a group of individuals, including Subhash Sharma, Hem Raj, Sukhdev (residents of Mandi), Abhishek Sharma (resident of Una) and Milan Garg,petitioner herein (resident of Meerut, UP), engaged in fraudulent activities related to crypto-currency H.P. On the advice of accused Subhash Sharma, the complainant alongwith others had invested in a website, i.e., www.voscrow.io, which was owned by accused Subhash Sharma alongwith petitioner Milan Garg and in lieu of their investments, virtual currency was provided through the website. Accused Subhash Sharma alongwith promoters Sukh Dev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma, allegedly cheated the general public through websites, like Voscrow and Hypenext. During the period between 2019- 2020, the aforesaid persons promised the individuals to double their money and such promises continued till 2021 and during that period, some individuals received distributions of funds against their investments, which led to increase in the investments, resultantly many people invested. On 25.12.2021, the allocations were halted by 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) Subhash Sharma and later on, he assured that the allocations would resume soon. Subsequently, Subhash Sharma tied-up with Hypenext, which was owned by the petitioner and on being persuaded, the people invested/ reinvested in Hypenext again and they also received partial funds against their investments, which practice continued till 2022. Thereafter, due to technical issues, the company requested five months’ time for payment and qua which, through a video, both Subhash Sharma as well as the petitioner informed the entire community. In total, the amount involved was Rs.18 Crores and they acknowledged and promised to activate new IDs on 8th August, 2023 at Aglobal.io, however, neither his (complainant) community, nor he received any money. Hence, it is alleged that petitioner Milan Garg, Subhash Sharma, Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur and Abhishek Sharma defrauded the people by creating fake website and it was a well- planned conspiracy. 3. As per the FIR, the accused persons were involved in fraudulent activities related to crypto-currency and they enticed the people to invest substantial amount(s), promising high returns, which resulted in a collective loss of Rs.18 crores to the complainant and his associates. On 26.09.2023 a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted, which was headed by DIG of Northern Range, Dharamshala, for investigating various crypto-currency related fraud 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) cases across the State. It was unearthed that the modus operandi of the alleged fraud involved alluring individuals with promise of high returns on crypto-currency investments, creating a network of investors, who recruited others, manipulating crypto-currency prices and ultimately causing financial loss to the victims. It was further unearthed that the accused persons used a combination of misinformation, deception and threats to maintain control over their scheme and continued extracting money from unsuspecting investors. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 13.07.2024 at NSCBI Airport Kolkata. 4. During the course of investigation, it has come on record that in the year 2018, accused Subhash Sharma and his associates had initiated a coordinated campaign of public inducement through seminars, wherein they introduced the concept of digital currencies, particularly Bitcoin and gradually diverted attention towards their own crypto-currency scheme under the name Korvio Community. Subsequent to the launch of Korvio platform, the accused persons, namely Subhash Sharma, Hemraj, Sukhdev Thakur and others, initiated a widespread network-driven promotion campaign by motivating individuals to invest and further recruit others under a binary referral scheme and new investors were registered through unique IDs requiring KRO Coins, which were either procured directly from the top- 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) line promoters or converted from BTC. In the year 2021, amidst rising public complaints, the accused re-branded the platform from Korvio to Voscrow and thereafter to DGT Coin under a newly created domain dgtswap. com, citing a shift from a private to a public block-chain, due to regulatory pressure. After the fraudulent activities under the banner of Korvio and DGT Coin, accused Subhash Sharma organized a large community meeting in August, 2021 at Radisson Hotel, Zirakpur, attended by approximately 300 to 500 individuals, each of whom was charged Rs.2,000/- as an entry fee. In the said event, accused persons Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg (petitioner) were the primary speakers and the petitioner explained that DGT Coin would now be swapped with BNB (Binance Coin) and that DGT would soon be listed on crypto-currency exchanges, thereby giving a false impression of legitimacy and luring the participants with promises of high returns. 5. The investigation further revealed that through the successive roll-out of these fraudulent platforms Korvio, DGT, Hypenext, Bitpaid Pro and Aglobal, the accused persons created and controlled a custom-built MLM software designed to manipulate token prices, fabricate digital coin values and systematically misled the public. The said software facilitated registration of over 2.48 lakh individuals and the accused persons collectively defrauded the public to the tune of Rs.2,000 Crores, through fake crypto-currencies and 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) private MLM tokens, operating entirely outside any lawful regulatory framework. On 02.10.2023, search operations were conducted at the residential premises of accused persons Hem Raj and Sukhdev Thakur, pursuant to which, both these accused persons were arrested and on their disclosure statements, substantial recoveries were effected and multiple crypto-currency wallets belonging to these accused persons were identified, which contained various virtual coins suspected to be proceeds of crime. In order to secure these digital assets, the official correspondence was initiated with Binance Exchange. Upon successful liaison, a secured custodial crypto wallet was created by the investigating team and thereafter, the seized digital assets were transferred to the aforesaid secured wallet. Forensic examination of the mobile phones of accused persons further led to recovery of incriminating WhatsApp chats and communications, which directly pertained to the planning, coordination and execution of the fraudulent crypto currency-based scheme. The investigation also revealed that this case was the first and largest of its kind in the State of Himachal Pradesh, involving an unprecedented estimated investment of over Rs.2,000/- crores from more than 80,000 victims and an assessed actual financial loss of Rs.500 crores. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has no role in the instant case and a false case has been 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) foisted against him. He further contended that the petitioner was neither Director, Promoter, investor nor associated with Karvio, DGT coin, Hypenext, BTP. He also contended that perusal of the charge- sheet reveals that there was no complaint against the petitioner qua his instigation for investment and there was no financial transaction of the petitioner, which could link him with the alleged offence. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during house search of the petitioner as well as tracking of his bank accounts, seizure of his mobile phones and other devices, nothing incriminating was found against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, which violated his right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, on this ground alone, he is entitled to be released on bail. He also contended that some of the identically placed co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioner may also be released on bail. He lastly contended that since the investigation in the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, he may be released on bail. 7. Conversely, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the substantial gains, which were acquired by the petitioner and other accused persons i.e., Subhash Sharma 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) Hemraj, Sukhdev, Abhishek Sharma, Sunil Kumar, etc., through the fraudulent scheme of crypto-currency, were invested in acquiring the valuable assets, i.e., movable and immovable properties at different places. He further contended that the instant is a case of huge economic offence and the investigation reveals the active involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the petitioner. He also submitted that case of the petitioner is not identically placed with co- accused persons as is being claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present bail application, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have given my considered thought to the rival contentions raised and also gone through the police file as well as the status report(s) filed by the prosecution. 9. The economic offences are considered grave offences as they affect the economy of the country as a whole and such offences having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund are to be viewed seriously. The economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and the State. The nature and seriousness 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications. No doubt at the stage of granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on merits of the case need not be taken but the order must reflect the reasons for arriving at a, prima facie, conclusion as to why bail is being granted or refused, particularly when the accused-petitioner is charged with the commission of economic offences. 10. In the case on hand, as per the material available on record, thousands of investors have fallen victims to this fraudulent scheme, as more than 80,000/- investors have contributed over the past four years with a total investment of around Rs. 2,000/- crores and there is an estimated loss of Rs. 500/- crores to the investors. The investigation, prima facie, revealed that the petitioner was the close associate of the main accused Subhash Sharma and was one of the the top liners in the chain. The main accused Subhash Sharma had absconded and moved out of India. The petitioner was holding a unique position and he had exclusive access to the Pancake Swap platform, which was essential for transferring and liquidating the Bitpaid (BTP) in the wallets. Perusal of the record revealed that the group action of the petitioner was crucial for recovering funds as he had 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) unique ability to perform these actions which underscores his central role not only in the fraudulent scheme, but also in the recovery process. The recoverable assets from these wallets were directly tied to the petitioner’s exclusive control and technical capabilities and his involvement was pivotal for both the ongoing investigation and the potential recovery of these assets. The investigation further revealed that a substantial amount of Rs.450 crores is pending recovery from the petitioner’s fraudulent schemes, which included losses from both the Hypenext and Aglobal platforms and the total value of the Bitpaid in INR is approximately Rs.18,640,790.56, which amount is recoverable as the petitioner was the sole individual capable of transferring or liquidating the crypto-currency through Pancake swap. 11. The law relating to bail in a case of economic offences is more or less settled in catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Gujrat vs. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1321, it is held as follows:- "5. xx xx xx The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white colour crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest". 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 in paras 34 and 35 in respect of granting bail in economic offences having deep rooted conspiracy and large public money involved, has held as under:- "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 13. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has observed that the alarming rise in white collar crimes has affected the fiber of country's economic structure. Economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. Economic offences constitute a class apart and a different approach has to be adopted in the matter of bail. Paras 23 to 25 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted here-in- below:- "23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest." 24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 14. In a judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, it has been held that while considering the bail involving socio-economic offences stringent 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) parameters should be applied. Paras 8 & 9 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:- “"8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar. 9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved in tampering with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with the examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination, 2016 and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and other students of Vishnu Rai College, in the said examination. During the investigation when a search team raided his place, various documents relating to property and land to the tune of Rs 2.57 crores were recovered besides Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of various students, letterheads and rubber stamps of several authorities, admit cards, illegal firearm, etc. were found which Page No.# 7/10 establishes a prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of the State of Bihar." 15. In a recent decision in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai. This court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal as under:— “5… The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest…” 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, while dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of granting anticipatory bail should be sparingly exercised in economic offences. The relevant extract of this judgment is reproduced as under:- "77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.386, para 19) 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. 78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain ((1998) 2 SCC 105), it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. XXX XXX XXX 83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of "placement", "layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin" and "interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets", it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As held in Anil Sharma, success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.” 17. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Officer vs. Nittin Johari and another, (2019) 9 SCC 165, wherein, it set aside the order of High Court of Delhi granting bail to the accused therein and held that:- 24."...it is necessary to advert to the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Specifically, heed must be paid to the stringent view taken by this Court towards grant of bail with respect of economic offences..…" 18. Hence, in view of the above stated authoritative pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court as the petitioner is, prima facie, alleged to be involved in the economic offences of huge magnitude, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, which violated his right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, on this ground alone, he is entitled to be released on bail. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) 576, Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2025)5 SCC 799. 20. In Pankaj Bansal’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for such arrest. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose………….” 21. In Prabir Purkayastha’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Para-22 of the judgment reads as under:- “22. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.” 22. In Vihaan Kumar’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1). Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:- 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) “26.1.The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); 26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved.” 23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right under Articles 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any violation thereof would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. In the case on hand, perusal of the record reveals that grounds of arrest were duly communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and in this respect, arrest memo has also been prepared. On the arrest memo, the petitioner had also written in his own handwriting that he wanted to inform his Advocate Jaideep about his arrest and his Advocate Jaideep was also informed on telephone. During the pendency of the instant bail application, Inspector Kamlesh Kumar, Cyber Crime, Police Station, Northern Range, Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP filed his affidavit before this court wherein he specifically stated that on 16.07.2024, when an application seeking transit custody of the petitioner was moved before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, West Bengal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had personally approached him and he had 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) duly provided him with a copy of the said transit remand application, which fact was clearly recorded in the case diary dated 16.07.2024 and after receiving the said copy, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a bail application opposing the prayer for transit remand. He further submitted that grounds of arrest were duly conveyed to the petitioner through transit remand application dated 16.07.2024, wherein the specific role of the petitioner was clearly mentioned and the transit remand application itself contained the grounds of arrest of the petitioner, which were clearly stated and conveyed. The petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, West Bangal and an application was moved for his five days’ transit remand. The aforesaid Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore also observed in its order that “the Police Officer of HP Police has complied with the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in substance. Substance of accusation is well found in police papers and the accused person is made acquainted with the same.” The bail application of the petitioner before the said Court was rejected and transit remand was allowed with respect to petitioner/accused Milan Garg for five days. Therefore, in view of the material available on record, it cannot be said that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. Hence, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that some of the identically placed co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioner may also be released on bail. 25. It is a settled law that parity cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail. It is one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail. There is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-accused, where another co- accused has been granted bail. Before considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, a brief recapitulation of the law on the aspect of parity may be apposite. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court cannot exercise it powers in a capricious manner and before granting bail on the ground of parity, the Court must focus upon the role of the accused and his position in relation to the incident and victims is also of utmost importance. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:- "25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside. 26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10- 2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law. " 26. Similar reiteration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be found in Tarun Kumar’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that 21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) parity is not the law, rather the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- "18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration …………………” 19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision.” 27. Tested on the touch stone of above principles, the petitioners’ submission premised on the ground of parity, is found to be devoid of merit. The perusal of record, prima facie, reveals that the petitioner was one of the kingpins of the scheme, whereas the co- accused persons who have been enlarged on bail, are merely investors. After going through the allegations as leveled against the co- accused persons who have been released on bail vis-à-vis allegations 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) against the petitioners, this court finds that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing and therefore the principle of parity for grant of bail would not be applicable to him. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused persons for grant of bail. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that since the investigation in the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, he may be released on bail. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted keeping in view the nature of economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracy involving huge loss of public funds. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage as in such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and the State. 29. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, the nature of accusations, the punishment prescribed for the offences under which charge sheet has been submitted, prima facie, the role played by the petitioner in the entire episode, the impact of such economic offences on the society, particularly on the common man who had been allured to make investments, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, at this stage, in the larger interest of public and State. 23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 ) 30. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 31. Before parting with this order, it is hereby clarified that the aforesaid observations made in this order have been made only for the purpose of considering the present bail application. Therefore, the same shall not come in the way of the trial court at the time of the trial and the trial Court concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge August 01, 2025 (VH) 24 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:25672 )