The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ABLAPL No.2038 of 2024 Jogeswar Meher Petitioners Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate …. State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Patra, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 01.05.2024 04. 1. Heard Mr. D. P. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S. Patra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek grant of anticipatory bail U/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. in apprehension of arrest for their alleged involvement in the offence under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, and 120-B of the IPC read with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in connection with Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, Kandhamal P.S. Case No. 7 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.906/2023 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Phulbani. 3. The case record reveals that, on the 29.11.2023, Complainant Dr. Arup Kumar Jena, a resident of Maa Mangala Sahi, PS-Phulbani town, District-Kandhamal, presented a written report alleging that one Priyabrata Behera, at/Po-Dadaki Square via Paratriangia PS- Page 1 of 5 Phulbani Sadar; Dist-Kandhamal (Mobile: 8260375748/ 8895525090) and Jogeswar Meher (Mobile: 8658355973), resident of Jharsuguda, PS/Dist-Jharsuguda, collected money in the name of Platin Coin Ultima (PLCU). He alleged that approximately lakhs of rupees have been collected from the depositors/customers with lucrative promises of multiple returns within weeks. The innocent people of Kandhamal and other areas have deposited their money in the cryptocurrency company through the Petitioner and his fellows since January 2022. Although both agents have collected money from the local people, they have not paid a single amount to any of the depositors in return. The complainant had deposited Rs. 3,87,000 in four installments to Priyabrata Behera during March to April 2022, but they have not paid a single amount in return. Priyabrata Behera and Jogeswar Meher had conducted several meetings on the cryptocurrency company at Hotel Dreamland, Hotel KPs Salunki, and other places of Phulbani Town to carry out the business. They both have also opened a mobile online WhatsApp group of the customers consisting of 21 people for the smooth functioning of the business. They have also made chats on the mobile phone to different customers for depositing money in the said company. He further came to know that the head office of this fraudulent company is in Dubai, Platin Tower, Jumeriah Lack Tower, Swiss Tower, Unit-1004-44, Dubai UAE. He has urged for necessary investigation and action against the organized crime. 4. Mr. D. P. Dhal, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner maintains no direct involvement in the case at hand. It is asserted that all alleged transactions were exclusively Page 2 of 5 made to the co-accused, Priyabrata Behera, and that there exists no evidence linking the Petitioner to any fraudulent activity. Moreover, the complexities inherent in the realm of cryptocurrency must not be overlooked. The mere participation in a program concerning cryptocurrency should not be misconstrued as direct involvement in any illicit activities. It is emphasized that the Petitioner's professional standing as an advocate enrolled in Jharsuguda Bar Association, coupled with a lack of substantive evidence connecting them to the purported wrongdoing, renders the notion of their culpability untenable. He further references a recent bail granted by the High Court of Gujarat in a similar case in the High Court of Gujrat, Ganesh ShivKumar Sagar Vs. State of Gujarat, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(S).268/2023. 5. Mr. Patra, the learned counsel for the State submits the Case Diary, specific instructions from the IIC Cyber PS, Kandhamal, statements of other depositors under Section 161 of the CrPC expressing similar concerns as the complainant, along with WhatsApp chat screenshots corroborating the lack of any funds received or returned since 2022. These statements indicate a pattern of behavior consistent with the alleged fraudulent activities of collecting money from multiple individuals with promises of high returns, yet failing to fulfill those promises. Furthermore, the statement of a hotel staff member who claims to have witnessed meetings between the petitioner and the co-accused discussing their cryptocurrency business, along with allegations of baiting innocent people with promises of high returns within a short period, provides additional evidence supporting the allegations of the prosecution. Page 3 of 5 This testimony suggests a modus operandi employed by the petitioner and the co-accused to lure unsuspecting individuals into investing their money under false pretenses. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner has actively cooperated with the investigation by appearing before the I.O. as per this Court’s order and when required. 6. In the matter of Ganesh ShivKumar Sagar (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Court has considered the observations made by the Gujarat High Court on rejecting the regular bail application for the petitioner, where it was concluded that there is a strong prima facie case against the petitioner and a very high probability of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution at the hands of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, while allowing bail for the same Petitioner in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 268/2023, did not express any views on the merits of the case but considered only the period spent by the petitioner in custody. 7. Furthermore, this Court acknowledges the prevalence of scams targeting individuals interested in cryptocurrency but lacking sufficient knowledge. Granting anticipatory bail in this case may set a precedent that could open floodgates to adversity, potentially exacerbating the situation. 8. The material put forth by the learned counsel for the State through the I.O. establishes a prima facie case against the petitioner which significantly weighs against the grant of anticipatory bail. In the light Page 4 of 5 of the observations made by the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, and considering the gravity of the offenses alleged, this court finds it not fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this ABLAPL is hereby rejected and disposed of. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Bijay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 03-May-2024 17:59:10 Page 5 of 5