The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that individuals playing a central role in large-scale economic frauds, particularly those involving crypto-based investment schemes, are not entitled to bail merely because co-accused with lesser roles have been released. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s duty to prioritize public interest and financial integrity over procedural convenience in white-collar crimes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Surender Kumar, is accused of being a key promoter in a multi-layered fraudulent investment scheme operating through virtual platforms Korvio, Voscrow, DGT, and Hypernext. The scheme lured investors with promises of high returns through cryptocurrency-based transactions, ultimately collapsing in late 2021 and leaving thousands defrauded. The petitioner is alleged to have functioned not as a passive investor but as a senior-level facilitator who recruited and trained new participants, collected funds, and managed digital wallets.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered on 24.09.2023 at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, and Sections 21 & 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.
- The fraudulent scheme operated between 2019 and 2023, promising returns of up to 100% on investments in virtual currencies such as KRO Coin.
- The petitioner joined the Korvio platform in 2019 after being introduced by co-accused Sukhdev Thakur.
- He actively promoted the scheme through presentations, explaining Bitcoin, wallet activation, commission structures, and weekly ROI payouts.
- He collected cash and bank transfers from investors and transferred funds for ID activations, claiming no personal profit.
- His Gmail ID was linked to approximately 120 user IDs on the Korvio platform.
- His network comprised 1,23,994 members, generating a total business volume of USD 124,454,432.
- He earned matching income of USD 11,069,644 from the scheme.
- His HDFC bank account (03.05.2019 to 04.07.2025) recorded credits of Rs. 2,33,19,979.11 and debits of Rs. 2,33,19,974.51.
- His Axis bank account (24.12.2019 to 21.12.2025) recorded credits of Rs. 2,50,01,057.90 and debits of an equal amount.
- He was ranked 13th on the Korvio platform’s Top 100 Payout List.
- He received a total payout of USD 831,753.31.
- He fled to Dubai in 2023, prompting the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) on 14.08.2025.
- He was detained at IGI Airport, New Delhi, on 07.12.2025 and formally arrested on 09.12.2025.
- The investigation revealed that over 80,000 investors were affected, with total investments estimated at Rs. 2,000 crores and losses exceeding Rs. 500 crores.
- The main accused, Subhash Sharma and Milan Garg, have absconded and are believed to be in Dubai.
Procedural History
- 24.09.2023: FIR No. 120/2023 registered at Police Station Palampur.
- 07.12.2025: Petitioner detained at IGI Airport, New Delhi, upon arrival from Dubai.
- 09.12.2025: Petitioner formally arrested and informed of arrest to his wife.
- 13/14.12.2025: Observation memo prepared examining petitioner’s Korvio dashboard linked to his Gmail ID.
- 09.12.2025: Charge sheet filed before the designated court.
- 25.03.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- 02.04.2026: Case reserved for judgment.
- 30.04.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Argued that the investigation is complete and no further recovery is expected from him.
- Claimed he is innocent and falsely implicated.
- Stated he has been in custody since 07.12.2025 and the charge sheet has been filed.
- Contended that several co-accused, who are mere investors, have been granted bail, and he is entitled to parity.
- Asserted that prolonged custody without imminent trial serves no purpose.
For the Respondent
- Argued that the petitioner is a principal beneficiary and senior promoter of the scheme.
- Highlighted his substantial role in recruiting over 1.2 lakh members and handling massive financial flows.
- Emphasized that the scheme caused losses of Rs. 500 crores to the public.
- Stated that the petitioner fled the country, indicating risk of absconding.
- Contended that his answers to the investigation questionnaire were evasive and incomplete.
- Opposed parity argument, asserting that co-accused granted bail were passive investors, not promoters.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending trial.
The Legal Issue
Can a person who played a central, profit-driven role in a massive crypto-based Ponzi scheme be granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who are mere investors, when the investigation reveals his substantial financial gains and active participation in the fraud?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the principle of parity, citing that several co-accused, described as investors, had been granted bail. He argued that since the investigation was complete and no further evidence was expected, continued custody served no investigative purpose. He emphasized the petitioner’s long detention since 07.12.2025 and the absence of any recovery or forensic action pending against him. He contended that the petitioner’s role was merely promotional and not criminal in nature, and that his financial gains were incidental.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Advocate General countered that the petitioner was not a passive investor but a senior-level promoter who built a network of over 120,000 members, collected funds, and operated multiple bank accounts to channel proceeds. He cited the petitioner’s rank on the Top 100 Payout List, his substantial earnings, and his flight to Dubai as evidence of his central role and risk of absconding. He argued that parity cannot override the gravity of the accused’s role and that the co-accused granted bail were not similarly situated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the legal framework governing bail in economic offences, drawing extensively from Supreme Court precedents. It emphasized that economic offences constitute a distinct category, characterized by deliberate design, cool calculation, and systemic harm to public trust and financial stability.
"An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community."
The Court noted that the petitioner’s involvement was not peripheral. His dashboard data, bank transactions, and payout records established him as one of the top beneficiaries of the scheme. The fact that he operated 120 user IDs under his Gmail ID and managed a network of over 120,000 members demonstrated organizational control, not mere participation.
The Court rejected the parity argument with precision. It held that parity is not an automatic right but a principle of equality under Article 14, which requires a comparison of roles, not just status. The co-accused granted bail were identified as investors who had deposited funds and received returns, whereas the petitioner was a recruiter, trainer, and fund conduit with no legitimate business activity.
"Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established."
The Court further observed that the petitioner’s flight to Dubai and subsequent detention upon return indicated a clear risk of absconding. His evasive responses to the investigation questionnaire and unexplained financial flows further undermined his claim of innocence.
The Court concluded that the nature of the offence, the scale of public loss, the petitioner’s central role, and the risk of evidence tampering or flight collectively justified denial of bail. The Court stressed that granting bail in such cases would undermine public confidence in the justice system’s ability to address white-collar crimes.
The Verdict
The bail application was dismissed. The petitioner, Surender Kumar, remains in custody pending trial. The Court held that his role as a senior promoter in a ₹2,000 crore crypto fraud scheme, with personal earnings exceeding USD 11 million and a network of 123,994 members, rendered him ineligible for bail. The Court explicitly rejected the claim of parity with co-accused investors, emphasizing that the gravity of the offence and the petitioner’s central role outweigh any procedural convenience. The charge sheet remains active, and the trial is to proceed without delay.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity Cannot Override Role-Based Distinctions
- Practitioners must demonstrate that co-accused are truly similarly situated - not merely in custody status or charge sheet stage, but in functional role, financial gain, and level of involvement.
- Bail applications premised on parity must include a detailed comparative analysis of roles, not just names or arrest dates.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the co-accused granted bail were promoters, fund collectors, or organizers versus passive investors.
Economic Offences Demand Stricter Bail Standards
- In cases involving multi-crore frauds, especially in crypto or MLM schemes, courts will treat the accused as high-risk unless proven otherwise.
- Flight from the country, use of multiple bank accounts, and unexplained financial inflows will be treated as strong indicators of flight risk.
- The scale of victimization (e.g., 80,000+ investors) and the magnitude of loss (e.g., ₹500 crore) are now decisive factors in bail hearings.
Investigative Evidence Is Sufficient for Bail Denial
- A complete investigation does not automatically entitle an accused to bail if the evidence already establishes a prima facie case of central involvement.
- Dashboard data, payout records, and bank statements can form the basis for denying bail even before trial.
- Evasive or incomplete responses to investigation questionnaires will be weighed heavily against the accused’s credibility.
