Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja, has dismissed a successive bail application filed by a petitioner accused in an alleged large-scale cryptocurrency investment fraud case. The court held that there was no substantial change in circumstances since the earlier rejection of bail and reiterated that "mere long incarceration... is not sufficient ground to enlarge an accused on bail" in cases involving serious economic offences. The petitioner’s plea citing delay in trial was rejected, with the court observing that the magnitude of the alleged fraud, involving thousands of investors and losses running into hundreds of crores, warranted continued custody at this stage.

According to the prosecution’s account, the case originated from a written complaint dated 24 September 2023 by one Arun Singh Guleria, lodged at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The complaint alleged that a group, including Subhash Sharma, Hem Raj, Sukhdev (residents of Mandi), Abhishek Sharma (resident of Una, the petitioner), and Milan Garg (resident of Meerut, Uttar Pradesh), engaged in fraudulent cryptocurrency-related activities.

Also Read: Is Judicial Officer Eligible For District Judge Post In Bar Quota? | Supreme Court Flags Article 233(2) Issue And Refers Matter To Constitution Bench

The complainant and others allegedly invested in the website www.voscrow.io, owned by Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg, upon Subhash Sharma’s advice. In exchange for their investments, investors received virtual currency through the website. The accused, including promoters Sukh Dev Thakur and petitioner Abhishek Sharma, allegedly misled the public through websites such as Voscrow and Hypenext.

Between 2019 and 2020, the group purportedly promised to double investors’ money. Some initial payouts encouraged further investments until allocations stopped on 25 December 2021. Subhash Sharma then tied up with Hypenext, owned by Milan Garg, persuading people to reinvest. Partial payouts continued until 2022, when the company cited technical issues and sought a five-month extension, informing the community via video.

The total amount involved was allegedly Rs. 18 crore. The accused promised to activate new IDs on 8 August 2023 at Aglobal.io, but neither the complainant nor his associates received money. It was alleged that the group created fake websites as part of a planned conspiracy.

The FIR recorded allegations that the accused lured people into substantial investments with promises of high returns, resulting in losses of Rs. 18 crore to the complainant’s community. On 26 September 2023, a Special Investigation Team headed by the DIG of Northern Range, Dharamshala, was constituted to investigate cryptocurrency fraud cases across the state.

The investigation allegedly revealed a modus operandi involving false promises, network-based recruitment of investors, manipulation of cryptocurrency prices, and the use of misinformation, deception, and threats to maintain control of the scheme.

Investigators claimed that accused Sukhdev Thakur introduced Abhishek Sharma to promote the Korvio crypto platform. On 11 August 2018, the petitioner registered with the multi-level marketing software, acquiring ID-174152. He allegedly organised promotional events in multiple towns, delivering speeches containing fabricated claims about the organic price growth of Korvio Coin, which in reality was price-manipulated.

The accused allegedly claimed the coin’s value would not drop below USD 10, encouraging depositors to recruit family and friends. When withdrawal requests arose, the petitioner purportedly advised converting coins into new IDs, funded by new joiners, thus perpetuating the fraud.

On 16 August 2021, the petitioner announced the closure of Korvio Coin linked to Voscrow Company, transferring coin assets to a new entity, “DGT”, and offering a plan to double staked coins in a year at USD 10 per coin. The price was later reduced to under USD 2, and allegedly to as low as 10 paise, causing substantial investor losses. The petitioner was arrested on 28 October 2023.

The petitioner contended that he had no role in the case, claimed false implication, and argued that prolonged custody since October 2023 infringed his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. He submitted that trial conclusion was not imminent, and continued incarceration served no purpose.

The State opposed the plea, terming it a successive bail application without any change in circumstances since the previous rejection. Earlier bail applications—Cr. MP (M) No. 1316 of 2024 (dismissed on 24 August 2024) and Cr. MP (M) No. 2546 of 2024 (withdrawn on 12 December 2024)—had failed.

The court referred to precedents from the Supreme Court, noting that successive bail applications require a substantial change in circumstances. It cited State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (AIR 1989 SC 2292), stating: "There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail."

In State of M.P. v. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673, it recorded: "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."

Similarly, in State of Tamil Nadu v. S.A. Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380, the apex court held: "Repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents."

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, it was stated: "The Court... 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."

Justice Kukreja observed that except for the plea regarding trial delay, the petitioner’s counsel "failed to point out any substantial change in the circumstances after the dismissal of his earlier bail application" that would entitle release.

The court noted that "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". The petitioner was described as a close associate of the main accused, one of the top liners in the chain, with the main accused having absconded abroad.

On the argument of delay, the court referred to Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari (2019) 9 SCC 165, quoting: "Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail... grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole."

It also cited Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 242: "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."

The court further quoted State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751: "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."

From Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1, it extracted: "Section 436A... cannot be granted mechanically... detention can be continued... even longer than one-half of the period..."

Also Read: Parties’ Choice To Trade Goods In ‘Sound Condition’ Prevails Over Earlier ‘As Is Where Is’ Agreement | Delhi HC Upholds Contractual Shift

Finally, the court concluded: "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 court dismissed the bail application, stating: "In view of... the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in commission of the economic offence of huge magnitude in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, merely because of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about one year and nine months, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge him on bail at this stage."

It clarified: "The aforesaid observations made in this order have been made only for the purpose of considering the present bail application... the trial Court concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria and Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocates General

Case Title: Abhishek Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:26852

Case Number: Cr.MP (M) No. 485 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sushil Kukreja