J&K High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail to Retired Army Man Accused in ₹6 Crore Crypto Fraud [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a retired army personnel accused in a multi-crore cryptocurrency fraud case.

The court held that the allegations of promoting a fake cryptocurrency scheme and laundering public money required his custodial presence for proper investigation.

Naresh Kumar Gulia, the petitioner, had approached the court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an Enforcement Directorate case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated and was himself a victim of the alleged fraud. It was further argued that Gulia had no ownership in the involved company, had invested his own retirement savings in good faith, and had joined the venture as a promoter only due to his military administrative experience.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The petitioner’s counsel also argued that the co-accused had already been granted bail and that no custodial interrogation was necessary because the evidence was largely documentary.

The Enforcement Directorate’s counsel argued that Naresh Kumar Gulia was the mastermind behind the fraudulent cryptocurrency scheme involving “Emollient Coin” and later “Tech Coin.” They argued that Gulia, along with his associates, organized seminars in India and Southeast Asia to lure the public into investing in a fake crypto coin with false promises of high monthly returns and commissions.

The counsel further argued that Gulia had absconded, failed to appear before the agency despite multiple summons, and was last traced to Thailand. The ED maintained that he received proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 57 lakhs and was uncooperative with the investigation.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani observed that the allegations were serious and involved the financial exploitation of thousands of people, including over 2,000 victims from Leh alone.

The court observed that the petitioner’s continued absence despite legal notices and the recovery of huge amounts of cash pointed to deliberate evasion. The court stated that his custodial interrogation was necessary to ensure a fair and complete investigation.

The court found that granting anticipatory bail in this case would not serve the interests of justice, particularly given the nature of the offence and the petitioner’s conduct. The court held that the petitioner had failed to meet the legal requirements for anticipatory bail under the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA. The court dismissed the application for pre-arrest bail.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates