Regular bail granted in an economic offence concerning a cryptocurrency scam involving approximately ₹4 Crore – Trial Court directed to impose conditions – Supreme Court clarified judicial discretion under Section 437(6) of CrPC, emphasizing individual liberty and expeditious trial

Held: Supreme Court granted bail, recognizing the delay in trial and appellant's prolonged custody. Judicial Discretion: The Court clarified that under Section 437(6) CrPC, bail is not an absolute right but must be considered in light of individual liberty. Condition Imposed: Appellant directed to deposit ₹35 Lakh within six months; failure to comply would result in automatic bail cancellation. Reference to Gujarat High Court Judgment (Nehul Prakashbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2012): Supreme Court reiterated that bail under Section 437(6) should be granted liberally unless compelling reasons exist for refusal.

Conclusion: Bail granted with financial conditions to balance individual liberty and public interest.

Acts & Sections Discussed:
Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Personal Liberty – Bail Consideration in Prolonged Trials
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 437(6), 167(2) – Bail in Non-Bailable Offences Before Magistrate – Discretion of Magistrate to Refuse Bail for Recorded Reasons
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 201, 120B read with Section 34 – Cheating, Causing Disappearance of Evidence, Criminal Conspiracy – Applicability in Cryptocurrency Fraud

Subjects:
Bail – Economic Offence – Cryptocurrency – Section 437(6) CrPC – Right to Speedy Trial – Judicial Discretion – Individual Liberty – Mandatory Deposit Condition

Nature of Litigation:
Criminal Appeal filed against the order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh denying bail to the appellant in a cryptocurrency scam case.

Relief Sought:
Appellant sought regular bail, invoking Section 437(6) of CrPC, claiming prolonged detention and slow trial proceedings.

Reason for Filing:
The High Court denied bail despite the appellant being in custody since December 2023 and the trial being in a preliminary stage with 189 witnesses listed.

Previous Decisions:
The High Court refused bail citing the serious nature of the economic offence.

Issues:

a) Whether the denial of bail under Section 437(6) CrPC was justified when trial proceedings were delayed.
b) Whether judicial discretion in bail applications under Section 437(6) should be exercised liberally in economic offences.
c) Whether a financial condition can be imposed as a bail prerequisite in economic offences.

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant:

• Argued that Section 437(6) mandates bail if trial proceedings are delayed beyond 60 days.
• Stated that the High Court failed to consider the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Asserted that the appellant was willing to comply with reasonable conditions, ensuring non-abscondance.

Respondent (State):

• Contended that the nature of the offence and financial impact on victims warranted continued custody.
• Highlighted the complexity of evidence and number of witnesses as factors justifying delay.
• Opposed bail citing the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.