Bail refused in Bike Bot scheme cases where direct receipt of investor funds showed active involvement and retained proceeds.

Bail in the connected Bike Bot cases was refused because the Supreme Court's direction to club the FIRs and consider a composite supplementary charge sheet did not itself establish entitlement to release. The High Court relied on the materials showing direct receipt of investor funds in the applicant's bank accounts even before formal induction as Additional Director, which indicated active involvement in the scheme and benefit from the alleged embezzlement. It further noted that the proceeds were not returned to investors. On that factual basis, the Court held that bail was not warranted and rejected the applications.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in the connected cases arising out of the Bike Bot scheme.

Analysis: The Court noted that the Supreme Court had already directed clubbing of the relevant FIRs and had contemplated a composite supplementary charge sheet, but held that those directions did not by themselves justify bail. On the materials placed before it, the Court found that the applicant had received money directly in his bank accounts from investors even before his formal induction as Additional Director, indicating active involvement in the scheme and benefit from the alleged embezzlement. The Court also observed that the monetary proceeds had not been returned to the investors.

Conclusion: Bail was not warranted and the applications were rejected.

---