The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to the wife of the alleged mastermind in a multi-state digital marketing scam involving alleged cheating of investors worth nearly ₹3,700 crore, while directing that assets attached by investigating agencies should not be released without permission of the Court.
During the hearing, the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that an earlier order incorrectly recorded the scam amount as ₹37,000 crore. Correcting the figure, the Court orally observed, “One zero is extra in the order,” adding that the alleged fraud amount was approximately ₹3,700 crore. The ED informed the Court that assets worth over ₹656 crore had already been attached, while the accused claimed that nearly ₹2,600 crore had been returned to investors.
The case relates to a digital marketing scheme allegedly operated through Ablaze Info Solutions Private Limited (AISPL), where investors were induced to purchase online IDs and packages in return for promised earnings through advertisement-sharing tasks. Referring to the allegations, the Court observed that “hundreds of investors” across the country had allegedly been duped.
Despite noting the “gravity of allegations and financial ramifications,” the Court said bail was justified because of several mitigating circumstances. The bench noted that the petitioner was a woman who had allegedly become a director only after marriage and remarked that the “main kingpin appears to be her husband, who remains in custody.” The Court also took into account that the petitioner had spent over eight years in custody since 2017 and had already secured bail in 254 out of 257 similar criminal cases.
Passing protective directions regarding attached properties, the Court ordered: “No court shall defreeze the assets attached by the ED or STF or any other State agency till all the trials are concluded.” The bench further clarified that investigating agencies would remain free to attach any “left-out immovable assets” belonging to the accused, relatives or associates suspected of benefiting from the alleged fraud.
At the same time, the Court observed that attached assets could still be released “for the benefit of the victim” after due verification. The bench also clarified that the present order should not automatically be used as parity for the grant of bail to the petitioner’s husband or other accused persons.