₹500-Crore Cryptocurrency Fraud: HP HC Rejects Bail Plea of Key Accused

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused bail to an accused in a ₹500-crore cryptocurrency fraud case, observing that large-scale economic offences with deep-rooted conspiracies and huge public losses must be dealt with seriously.

Justice Sushil Kukreja said that economic offences severely affect the country’s economy and courts must consider the larger interest of the public and the State before granting bail. The Court noted that over 80,000 investors had contributed about ₹2,000 crore in the past four years, with an estimated loss of ₹500 crore. The petitioner was found to be a close associate of the main accused and a top-level promoter in the chain.

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, arguing that he had been in custody for over a year and nine months and the trial would take time to conclude. However, the Court held that prolonged custody alone was not a valid reason for bail in such a serious case.

According to the complaint, the accused ran fraudulent cryptocurrency schemes through websites like Voscrow.io and Hypenext, promising to double investors’ money. Some payouts were made initially, which built trust and encouraged further investments. In December 2021, payouts stopped, with promises of resuming later. The accused later linked the scheme with another company, Hypenext, where partial payments were made.

Later, citing “technical issues,” the promoters promised to settle dues within five months, but this never happened. They then shifted to Aglobal.io, where no payments were made to investors.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed in 2023 to probe cryptocurrency frauds in Himachal Pradesh. Investigations revealed that the accused lured people with high return promises, built a multi-level marketing network, manipulated cryptocurrency prices, and caused massive financial losses.

The petitioner had joined in 2018 as a promoter of the Korvio crypto platform, registered on MLM software, held gatherings, and made exaggerated claims about coin value growth. The Court concluded that the magnitude of the offence and the petitioner’s active involvement justified the continued denial of bail.

Case Name: Abhishek Sharma v. State of H.P. & Ors.