C.S.Dias, J
1. The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for short), by the first accused in Crime
No.61/2024 of the Palakkad Town South Police Station, registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning)
Act, 1978 (in short ' PCMCS Act) and Sections 3 and 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 ( 'BUDS Act' in short).
2. The essence of the prosecution case is that, the accused 1 and 2 without any sanction or permission collected money from the public for an online
project named 'Meta Force'. They made the de facto complainant believe that they are the promoters of the said project. They conducted motivation
classes at various hotels in Palakkad Town and induced the general public to deposit money in the said project. The accused 1 and 2 induced the de
facto complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.28,77,500/- to the bank account of the first accused during the period from 1.8.2023 to 31.12.2023.
However, the accused failed to give any profit or return the deposited amount to the de facto complainant. Thus, the accused have committed the
above offences.
3. The petitioner had filed a similar application before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Palakkad. However, the court below, by
Annexure -4 order, dismissed the bail application.
4. Heard; Sri.Mohammed Youseff, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Senior Counsel strenuously argued that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely
implicated in the crime. The offences alleged against the petitioner will not be attracted to the facts of the case. Actually, the de facto complainant
was one of the members of the business project named 'Meta Force'. The said project was dealing in virtual currency. Meta Force was born within
the polygon ecosystem, combines gaming, social networking and virtual reality into a fast-growing metaverse where users create business
communities and participate in NFT trading. The Force Coin dealt with by Meta Force is a crypto coin just like the Bit Coin and other crypto
currencies. The petitioner has been maintaining friendship with the de facto complainant for the last ten years. The de facto complainant had
misbehaved with a female member of the Meta Force team. When the petitioner complained about his misbehavior`, he developed a grudge towards
him. It is an aftermath of the said incident that the de facto complainant has presently filed the frivolous complaint. Annexure 5 to Annexure 7 series
establish that the de facto complainant was having a cordial relationship with the petitioner. The transactions conducted by the Meta Force do not fall
within the purview of the BUDS Act or the PCMCS Act. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.1.2024. The investigation in the case is
practically complete and recovery has been effected. The petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. It is well settled that bail is rule and jail is the
exception. The court below has ignored the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salinder Kumar Antil v. Commissioner of Police
and another [2022 Livelaw (SC) 577], Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I [2021 SCC Online (SC) 941] and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC
173] . Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehementally opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner is the mastermind of an online scam and the
accused have cheated several innocent depositors. The petitioner is the promoter of 'Meta Force'. He conducted meetings at various hotels and
solicited the public to invest money in the project. The investigation conducted so far has revealed that nearly 2500 depositors have invested their
money. The transactions were conducted through five WhatsApp groups consisting of 500 members each. The petitioner has five bank accounts and
has collected a total amount of Rs.1,29,15,306/-. The petitioner has received Rs.28,77,500/- from the de-facto complainant. The Chittoor Police have
also registered Crime No.53/2024 in connection with a similar crime and the petitioner is the first accused in the said crime. The accused Nos.2 and 3
in the said crime have filed B.A No.559/2024 before this Court for an order of pre-arrest bail. The investigation is only at its nascent stage.
Recoveries have to be effected. The second accused is still at large. The present crime is only the tip of the iceberg. The investigation reveals that the
accused have committed similar offences. Therefore, if the petitioner is released on bail now, it would hamper with the investigation. There is every
likelihood of the petitioner intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
7. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused 1 and 2 floated a company named 'Meta Force', promoted the said company by conducting
motivation classes and meetings at different hotels in Palakkad and induced the public to invest money in the said project by assuring them profit. It is
submitted that approximately 2500 depositors have deposited an amount of Rs.1,29,15,306/-. The de-facto complainant has deposited an amount of
Rs.28,77,500/-. However, the accused have failed to pay profits to the depositors or returned the amount. Thus, the accused have committed the
above offences.
8. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another [(2010) 14 SCC 496], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“9. …...... It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation:
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.â€
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another [AIR 2004 SC 1866] has held
thus:
 “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be
undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of
having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to
consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are,
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others (2002(3) SCC 598) and Puran v. Rambilas
and another (2001 (6) SCC 338)â€
10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the bar, and on comprehending the
nature, seriousness and gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, the potential severity of the punishment that is likely to be imposed on him
in the event of his conviction, that the investigation in the case is still at the preliminary stage, that the recoveries have to be effected, that the second
accused is still absconding and there is another case of a similar nature registered Â
against the petitioner, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage because there is a danger of justice being thwarted. Therefore, the
application is only to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the application is dismissed.
