( 2026:HHC:25156 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPs (M) No. 587 & 588 of 2026 Reserved on: 25.05.2026 Decided on: 29.06.2026 Date of Uploading on Website:29.06.2026 (1) Cr. MP(M) No. 587/2026 Sukh Dev ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent (2) Cr. MP(M) No. 588/2026 Hem Raj ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent [ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Arjun Lall and Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Manoj Chauhan and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail applications have been filed by the petitioners 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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) Depositors Act, 1999 and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of 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, Abhishek Sharma and Milan Garg, (resident of Meerut, UP), were 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 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 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) Subhash Sharma and later on, he assured that the allocations would resume soon. Subsequently, Subhash Sharma tied-up with Hypenext, which was owned by Milan Garg 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 qua which, through a video, Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg 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 was alleged that 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 cases across the State. It was unearthed that the modus operandi of 3 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 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. 4. The investigation revealed that the petitioners orchestrated gatherings in various locations such as Mandi, Kullu, Baddi, Chandigarh, Una, Hamirpur, Palampur etc. and during these events, the petitioners took center stage, managing and anchoring programs where they delivered speeches rife with fabricated and exaggerated content. The petitioners went to great lengths to assert that the price of Korvio (KRO) Coin was organically increasing based on demand. However, in reality, they manipulated the price according to their whims. They falsely asserted that once the coin reached a certain threshold, its value would never drop below $10. The petitioners by exploiting the trust of depositors, encouraged them to bring their family, friends and associates into the Korvio (KRO) Coin scheme. When investors sought withdrawals for the coins they held, the petitioners devised a deceptive strategy. They instructed investors to activate new ID’s by using their coins and to collect cash from these new joiners 4 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) against the coins utilized for the activation of those ID’s. This calculated misdirection perpetuated the fraudulent scheme, furthering the financial harm inflicted upon unsuspecting investors. On 16.08.2021, the petitioners made a significant announcement regarding the closure of the Korvio (KRO) Coin associated with Voscrow Company. They revealed that all the coin assets, previously held by investors under the name of Korvio (KRO) were being transferred to a new company named DGT. Simultaneously, a novel plan enticing investors to stake newly introduced coin, DGT was introduced. According to this plan, investors were promised a doubling of their staked coins within a one year timeframe, with coins initially staked at the prevailing rate of $10. The petitioners orchestrated a deliberate reduction in the price of the DGT Coin, bringing it down to less than $2. This manoeuvre, executed by the petitioners was done with a clandestine agreement. By collecting proceeds from investors at the rate of $10 and subsequently reducing the coin’s value to a mere 10 paise, they sought to exploit investors of their hard earned money. This intentional and deceptive manipulation left the general public, particularly investors, severely deceived and financially harmed. The petitioners orchestrated multiple gatherings across Himachal Pradesh and other locations, where they gathered individuals under their influence and sway. During these meetings, they urged attendees to invest in DGT Coins, emphasizing the potential for 5 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) lucrative returns and assuring them that the coin’s would surge. Encouraged by these promises, the public, under the influence of the petitioners, enthusiastically purchased DGT Coins, some even resorting to acquiring loans for this purpose. The petitioners, despite promises intentionally manipulated the price of the DGT Coin, causing it to plummet from 25 to 15 and eventually to less than 10 paise. This deliberate action resulted in a significant financial setback for those, who had invested. On October 2, 2023, comprehensive disclosure statements from the petitioners were recorded/documented under Section 27 of the I.E. Act. Following these disclosure statements, recovery cum seizure memo qua their mobile phones and laptop was prepared, which disclosed their Gmail ID’s used for crypto-based MLM. Additionally, Whatsapp chats with Subhash Sharma, Abhishek Sharma and Radhika Sharma were recovered. The mobile phone yielded a liability list for Sukhdev (petitioner herein), indicating a total liability of around 129.24 Crore, as regards Hemraj (petitioner herein), total liability is approximately Rs. 9,67,29,191/- Crore. The investigation also brought to light that the petitioners extensively utilized their Gmail accounts primarily for activities related to Korvio and Voscrow. On meticulous examination of financial transactions provided crucial insights into the movement of funds associated with the fraudulent scheme. 6 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no role in the instant case and a false case has been foisted against them. He further contended that investigation in the present case is complete and challan has been presented before the learned designated Court and in challan, 350 witnesses have been cited, as such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, as the trial has yet not commenced, hence the petitioners, who are behind the bars for the last more than three years, are required to be enlarged on bail in the interest of justice, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. 6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail as they have been found involved in a serious economic offence of huge magnitude, so at this stage, in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He further contended that the present bail applications filed by the petitioners are the successive one, which are liable to be dismissed, as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail applications. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also carefully gone through the material available on record. 7 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 8. Pertinently, the present are the successive bail applications filed by the petitioners. Earlier, the petitioners had preferred bail applications being Cr. MPs (M) No. 1314 & 1315 of 2024 before this Court, seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing I.A. No. 59732/2025, which was dismissed, as withdrawn. 9. It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive bail application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. 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 during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail. 10. In State of M.P vs. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically considered that when there are no changed circumstances, the successive bail application is nothing but 8 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) review of the earlier application which cannot be maintainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “8. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc. case No. 2052 of 2000 on 5.6.2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that 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 as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa ((2001) 1 SCC 169) and various other judgments.” 11. In State of Tamilnadu vs. S.A.Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “9. When a learned Single Judge of the same Court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents.” 12. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar,vs Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7SCC 528 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “20. "Before concluding, we must note though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the Court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications………." 9 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 13. In Virupakshappa Gouda & another vs. State of Karnataka and another (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 406 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: “12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to Say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge- sheet for trial of the accused persons. As is further demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has remained absolutely oblivious of the fact that the appellants had moved the special leave petition before this Court for grant of bail and the same was not entertained. Be it noted, the second bail application was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge after filing of the charge-sheet which was challenged in the High Court and that had travelled to this Court. These facts, unfortunately, have not been taken note of by the learned trial Judge……….” 14. A perusal of the aforementioned judgments indicates that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances, but the change of circumstances must be substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence. Without the change in the circumstances, the subsequent bail application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier rejection order, which is not permissible under criminal law. While entertaining such subsequent bail applications, the Court has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected and what are the 10 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) fresh grounds which persuade it warranting the evaluation and consideration of the bail application afresh and to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application. There must be change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. 15. The law with respect to the grant or refusal of bail is well settled. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. In Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2004) 7 SCC 525, the Apex Court has laid down requisite factors for consideration of bail i.e., (i) nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable 11 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. 16. In the case on hand, the investigation brought to light a manipulative pattern employed by the petitioners, who orchestrated gatherings in different locations such as Mandi, Kullu, Baddi, Chandigarh, Una, Hamirpur, Palampur etc. During these events, the petitioners took center stage, managing and anchoring programs, where they delivered speeches rife with fabricated and exaggerated content. The petitioners went to great length to assert that the the price of the Korvio Coin was organically increasing based on demand. However, in reality, they manipulated the price according to their whims. They falsely asserted that once the coin reached a certain threshold, its value would never drop below $ 10. The investigation further revealed that exploiting the trust of depositors, the petitioners encouraged them to bring in family, friends and associate them into Korvio Coin Scheme. Furthermore, when investors sought withdrawals for the coins they held, the petitioners devised a deceptive strategy. They instructed investors to activate new IDs by using their coins and to collect cash from these new joiners against the coins utilized for the activation of those IDs. This calculated misdirection perpetuated the fraudulent scheme, furthering the financial harm inflicted upon 12 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) unsuspecting investors. On 16.08.2021, the petitioners made a significant announcement regarding the closure of the Korvio Coin associated with Voscrow Company. They revealed that all the coins assets, previously held by investors under the name Korvio were being transferred to a new company named DGT. Simultaneously, the petitioners introduced a novel plan enticing investors to stake the newly introduced coin, DGT. According to this plan, investors were promised a doubling of their staked coins within a year, with coins initially staked at the prevailing rate of $ 10. The petitioners orchestrated a deliberate reduction in the price of the DGT Coin, brining it down to less than $ 2. This maneuver, executed by the petitioners was done with a clandestine agreement. By collecting proceeds from investors at the rate of $ 10 and subsequently reducing the coin’s value to a mere 10 paise, they sought to exploit the significant difference, thereby depriving unsuspecting investors of their hard earned money. This intentional and deceptive manipulation left the general public, more particularly, the investors, severely deceived and financially harmed. The petitioners orchestrated multiple gatherings across Himachal Pradesh and other locations, where they gathered individuals under their influence and sway. During the aforesaid gatherings, they urged attendees to invest in DGT coins, emphasizing the potential for lucrative returns and assuring them that the coin’s value would surge. 13 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) Encouraged by these promises, the public under the influence of the petitioners, enthusiastically purchased DGT coins, some even resorting to acquiring loans for this purpose. However, despite promises, the petitioners intentionally manipulated the price of DGT coin, causing it to plummet from 25 to 15 and eventually to less than 10 paise. This deliberate action resulted in a significant financial setback for those who had invested, further highlighting the deceitful practices employed by the accused to the detriment of unsuspecting individuals. 17. Thus, from the investigation, prima facie, it is evident that the petitioners are involved in the economic offences of huge magnitude. Economic offences are considered grave offences as it affects 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. 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 State. The nature and seriousness 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. 14 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 18. In the instant case, the investigation prima facie reveals that 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. Furthermore, the investigation reveals that the petitioners are the close associates of the main accused Subhash Sharma and they are the top liners in the chain. They have lured many people in the State and other parts of the country into the scheme. The main accused Subhash Sharma has absconded and moved out of India. Hence, considering the allegations levelled against the accused/petitioners, the nature of economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracy involving huge loss of public funds, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, as the petitioners are prima facie alleged to be involved in the economic offences of huge magnitude, they cannot be released on bail. 19. The law relating to bail in a case of economic offences is more or less settled in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It would be useful at this point to give a conspectus of the law and the principles for grant of bail in case of economic offences. Extracts from some of the most relevant and topical judgments on this point are set-out in the paragraphs that follow. 15 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 20. 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". 21. 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." 16 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 22. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, the Hon’ble 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. Para 23 to 25 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereinbelow:- "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 [(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 17 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 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." 23. 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 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 18 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 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." 24. 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 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 19 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 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...” 25. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that charge sheet in the present case has been presented before the learned designated Court, wherein, the prosecution has cited 350 witnesses and the trial has still not commenced, as such, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail, as they are behind the bars since 02.10.2023 and there is no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in near future. In support of his contentions, he also had placed reliance upon Ganesh Shivkumar Sagar Vs. State of Gujarat 2023 SCC OnLine SC 903, V. Senthil Balaji Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322, Kapil Wadhawan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Dheeraj Wadhawan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 and Arvind Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 SCC OnLine SC 30. 26. There is no dispute about the proposition that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees speedy trial and an under 20 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) trial prisoner cannot be detained in jail/custody for an indefinite period. However, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioners to be enlarged on bail, as the petitioners are prima facie found involved in an economic offence of huge magnitude. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and another, (2019) 9 SCC 165 the Supreme Court has held that stringent view should be taken by the Court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences. Paragraphs 24 is extracted hereunder:- " 24. At this juncture, it must be noted that even as per Section 212(7) of the Companies Act, the limitation under Section 212(6) with respect to grant of bail is in addition to those already provided in CrPC. Thus, it is necessary to advert to the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC. Specifically, heed must be paid to the stringent view taken by this Court towards grant of bail with respect of economic offences. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the following observations of this Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) "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." This Court has adopted this position in several decisions, including Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement [Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 603] and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar [State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, 21 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) (2017) 13 SCC 751 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 771] . Thus, it is evident that the above factors must be taken into account while determining whether bail should be granted in cases involving grave economic offences. 27. The Supreme Court in the case reported in Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2007) 1 SCC 242 has held that when the gravity of offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future cannot entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "16…………………….... It is true that when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere period of incarceration or the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or conjointly may not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. Nevertheless, both these factors may also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of grant of bail." (Emphasis supplied) 28. In the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 the Supreme Court has reiterated that where there is seriousness of the offence, the mere fact that the accused is languishing in jail during trial should not be the concern of the courts. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "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 22 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 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." 29. 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:- “21. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial is likely to take long time and the appellant would be incarcerated for indefinite period, is also not well founded in view of the observations made by this Court in case of Vijay Madanlal (supra). On the application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it has been categorically held therein that: - “419. Section 436A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome beneficial provision, which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, the accused ought not to be detained further. Indeed, Section 436A of the 1973 Code also contemplates that the relief under this provision cannot be granted mechanically. It is still within the discretion of the Court, unlike the default bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Under Section 436A of the 1973 Code, however, the Court is required to consider the relief on case-to-case basis. As the proviso therein itself recognises that, in a given case, the detention can be continued by the Court even longer than one-half of the period, for which, reasons are to be recorded by it in writing and also by imposing such terms and conditions so as to ensure that after release, the accused makes himself/herself available for expeditious completion of the trial.” 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 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 23 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) 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….” 30. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another) has held that three years incarceration would not itself entitle the accused-applicant to be released on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likelihood to be concluded in near future would be sufficient for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail considering the gravity of offence. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder:- "14. We have already noticed from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the present accused had earlier made seven applications for grant of bail which were rejected by the High Court and some such rejections have been affirmed by this Court also. It is seen from the records that when the fifth application for grant of bail was allowed by the High Court, the same was challenged before this Court and this Court accepted the said challenge by allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India and another and cancelled the bail granted by the High Court as per the order of this Court made in Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2001 dated 25-7-2001 [Rajesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 222] . While cancelling the said bail this Court specifically held that the fact that the present accused was in custody for more than one year (at that time) and the further fact that while rejecting an earlier application, the High Court had given liberty to renew the bail application in future, were not grounds envisaged 24 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) under Section 437(1)(i) of the Code. This Court also in specific terms held that the condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail." 31. Thus when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe, mere long incarceration in jail as under-trial is not sufficient ground to enlarge an accused on bail if the facts & circumstances of the case and interest of the society do not warrant for enlarging the accused- applicant on bail. The present is an economic offence and the economic offences are considered grave offences as they affect the economy of the country and such offences are to be viewed seriously. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such cases. The case laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the facts in the present case are quite different from the facts in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners.In the opinion of this Court, socio- economic damage to the society has much greater importance than 25 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) duration of the petitioners in custody as about 80,000/- small depositors/investors have lost their life savings and as per the investigation, there is an estimated loss of Rs. 500/- Crores to the investors. Therefore, this Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and the State, coupled with the fact that the rights of small depositors/investors have to be protected. 32. Thus, in view of the above stated authoritative pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court, considering the prima facie involvement of the petitioners in commission of the economic offence of huge magnitude in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, merely because of the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 02.10.2023, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge them on bail at this stage. Moreover, at this stage, in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice as the main accused Subhash Sharma has absconded and fled to Dubai. 33. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, the bail applications filed by the petitioners are dismissed. 34. 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 26 ( 2026:HHC:25156 ) and the trial Court concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge June 29, 2026 (raman) 27