Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025Crl.O.P.No.18254 of 2025:1.Muhilan2.Thangamani... Petitioners/A2 & A3Vs.State rep. by The Inspector of Police,Cyber Crime Police Station,Salem,Salem District.(Crime No.19 of 2025).... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.19 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.For Petitioners:Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj for Mr.W.Camyles GandhiFor Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja,Government Advocate (Crl. Side)COMMON ORDERThe petitioners/A2 & A3 who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.05.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 403 IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Page No.2 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 20252008 in connection with Crime No.19 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seek bail. 2.The petitioner/A1 who apprehends arrest at the hands of respondent Police for offence punishable under Sections 420 & 403 IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 in connection with Crime No.19 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.3.For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioners are referred to as accused, as per their rank in FIR.4.Gist of the case is that defacto complainant previously employed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Agriculture Department and, now doing contract works in Agriculture Department, Public Works Department, Highways Department, Rural Development and Forest Department. The defacto complainant has three bank accounts in Indian Bank, Yercaud Branch, State Bank of India, Yercaud Branch and Indian Overseas Bank, Page No.3 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025Karuppur Branch, in which, mobile number 8925935630 is given as contact number. Using this mobile number, defacto complainant used to transact money through Gpay. In the year 2020, defacto complainant made investment of Rs.20 lakhs in BELDEX CRYPTOCURRENCY. In this transaction, defacto complainant came in contact with one Srinath of Ayothipattinam, Salem. On 17.06.2024, Srinath and his friend Ranjithkumar of Pallipalayam met defacto complainant near Salem Five-Road Junction and informed that A1 created a crypto coin in the name of SPX SPOTX COIN and they invested in the said coin and also deceived defacto complainant to invest in the said coin on the promise of high returns. Later, Srinath and Ranjithkumar informed that A1 again created a coin in the name of STX PRIME COIN in the website viz., www.stxprime.live and again defacto complainant deceived to invest in the same on the promise that within 400 days substantial returns would be reaped and he can withdraw principal amount with high returns. Further, they informed that the money can be sent to them and the same can be invested in the said coin which can be viewed and mentioned in the website. Believing the same, on 10.07.2024, defacto complainant sent an amount of Page No.4 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025Rs.70,000/- through Gpay to Srinath, thereafter, an account opened in the said website, purchase of STX PRIME COIN for Rs.70,000/- reflected and the defacto complainant was given seven IDs. In total, the defacto complainant was given eight IDs and invested around Rs.11 lakhs. After sometime, A1 informed that www.stxprime.live closed, instead STXLIVE COIN opened for the business transaction. 5.A1's son A2 was updating in the website about the business projections and he was also holding regular zoom meetings. It was projected that crypto currency international was having control over these transactions and they had deposited Rs.99 lakhs PANCKAE SWAP in USDT. Later, it came to know that A1 opened fake websites, posted false websheets and XLR sheets projecting active business in crypto currency, thereafter, it was informed that www.stxprime.live was closed. On 27.01.2025, the accused introduced ROLAN COIN in www.rolan.ai and again the accused deceived defacto complainant to invest in the said coin promising 50% returns would be immediately reaped and balance 50% after sometime. Again, the defacto complainant deposited money in the said Page No.5 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025ROLAN COIN. Later, the said www.rolan.ai website not functioned and closed. Thus, the defacto complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs.22,48,500/-. 6.The defacto complainant met A1, his son A2 and wife A3 on 05.11.2024, all promised that by 27.01.2025 the entire amount would be repaid. In this case, Dinesh of Tiruchengode, Sathishkumar of Kolathur, Srinath and Ranjith Kumar had received Rs.4,00,000/- in cash from the defacto complainant and balance amount paid through Gpay. On 03.03.2025 when defacto complainant along with Ranjith Kumar met A1, he promised that all are in crypto currency business and soon the entire amount will be returned. In contrary, all websites closed and defacto complainant was cheated and his investment misappropriated by all accused in connivance with each other. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint to the respondent Police with investment details, Gpay particulars and screenshots of websites. On the complaint, an FIR in Crime No.19 of 2025 for offence under Sections 420 & 403 of IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 registered. Page No.6 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 20257.The contention of A2 & A3 is that A2 & A3 were arrested by the respondent Police on 24.05.2025 despite giving explanation they have nothing to do with the business of A1. Since A2 is the son and A3 is the wife of A1, they are falsely implicated in this case. In the business transactions between A1 and defacto complainant and others, A2 and A3 has got no role, they never met defacto complainant and received any amount from him. Hence, prayed for bail.8.As regards A1 is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that purely a business transaction is given criminal colour and projected as though A1 deceived the defacto complainant to make investment in crypto currency and cheated him. Admitted case of the defacto complainant is that he was deceived by Srinath and Ranjith Kumar who had misused the name of A1. In this case, there is no direct transaction between A1 and defacto complainant, A1 never met the defacto complainant at any point of time. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to A1.Page No.7 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 20259.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police filed counter in both petitions and submitted that A2 & A3 are son and wife of A1, the prime accused, their roles are not merely formal but operational in the crypto-based fraudulent schemes involving STX PRIME, STX LIVE and ROLAN COIN. A2 in his confession admits that he explained the fake investment structure to defacto complainant and encouraged investment. He further submits that A2 conducted zoom meetings with victims to convince them to invest in STX PRIME COIN. A2 is linked to managing IDs, wallet instructions and customer interactions. The seizure mahazar from A2 and A3 includes multiple mobile phones, SIM cards, debit cards and crypto-related applications. These digital tools were used to transact money, mislead investors and store unlawful gains. 29 Gmail accounts actively used in these operations. The devices seized contains key communication evidences, such as Telegram chats, wallet credentials, and transaction histories connecting them to fraudulent crypto platforms. He further submitted that A2 and A3 assisted A1 in luring victims, managing funds, and diverting them through fake web domains and they are actively involved in laundering the proceeds of crime. Since A1 is Page No.8 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025still absconding, at this stage granting bail for A2 and A3 would jeopardize the effort in securing the prime accused and may result in manipulation of digital and financial evidences. 10.He further submitted that NCRP Portal reflects 5 complaints linked to the accused, of which, one against A2, four against A1 and eight complaints registered across India based on their account number, spanning states such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, Odisha, Telangana, Delhi, Haryana and Gujarat. On 05.11.2024 and 27.01.2025, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- in cash to the accused at the residence of A1. The defacto complainant also transferred funds to various bank accounts held by his friends which were subsequently transferred to the bank accounts of A1. The details of the transactions are as follows:1.Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to Sathish, a friend of the defacto complainant to his ICICI Bank account.2.Rs.3,62,000/- was transferred to Ranjith, a friend of the defacto complainant, to his IDBI Bank account.3.Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to Vanitha, a friend of the complainant, to her Bandhan Bank account.Page No.9 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 20254.Rs.1,30,800/- was transferred to Srinath, a friend of the defacto complainant, to his HDFC Bank account. 11.He further submitted that the defacto complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.22,48,500/- to A1 and to the defacto complainant's friends Sathishkumar, Ranjithkumar, Vanitha and Srinath and subsequently transferred the said amount to A1 to A3 through various modes including cash payments and bank transfers. The entire defrauded amount has been deposited and maintained in Binance application along with other crypto currency and financial applications, installed on the mobile phone of A2. The said Binance and related application accounts have been created and operated in the name of A3. Hence, he strongly opposed for granting bail to A2 & A3. As regards A1 is concerned, the learned Government Advocate submits that A1 is the prime accused and a key conspirator in a large scale crypto currency scam involving fake crypto coins namely STX SPOTX, STX PRIME, STX LIVE and ROLAN COIN. A1 induced multiple individuals including the defacto complainant to invest large sums of money by misappropriation. He further submits that A1 is not yet arrested, the confession statement of A2 & A3 clearly reveal the execution and Page No.10 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025management of fraudulent schemes. Further, A1 operated fake websites, created multiple IDs for investors and redirected funds in the name of crypto coins to simulate false returns. Several digital assets and wallets including Trust Wallet and Binance, were used to divert and store funds. Hence, the custodial interrogation of A1 is essential to recover misappropriated amount and identify involvement of others. He further submits that A1 has two cases of similar nature in Crime Nos.22 & 52 of 2025 and A2 has one previous case of similar nature in Crime No.22 of 2025. Hence, he strongly opposed for anticipatory bail to A1.12.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.13.It is seen that defacto complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs.22,48,500/- not only by A1 to A3 but also by Sathishkumar, Ranjithkumar, Srinath and Vanitha Associates. Scanned reproduction of flowchart produced by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) is as follows:Page No.11 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 202514.Further, the bank statements of defacto complainant, Sathishkumar, Ranjithkumar, Srinath and Vanitha Associates and accused confirms trail of money. In this case, several fake websites created projecting as though it was a genuine business in crypto currency and deceived the defacto complainant and others to make investment. After investment, the said fake websites constantly changed, later became inaccessible and finally deleted. Using Binance application, cheated and misappropriated amounts deposited by A1 & A2. 15.It is also seen that in this case, the fulcrum is A1 and his son A2. Page No.12 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025A2 not only received the money of the victims but also conducted regular zoom meetings, canvassed to the victims giving high projection and also posted web sheets and XLR sheets with false particulars, which turned to be fabricated. In this case, the defacto complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs.22,48,500/-. If A1 & A2 are granted relief of bail, it would be difficult to recover the misappropriated amount and identify others involvement. Added to it, A1 has two previous cases of similar in nature in Crime Nos.22 & 52 of 2025 and A2 has one previous case in Crime No.22 of 2025.16.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to A1 and bail to A2. Accordingly, anticipatory bail filed by A1 in Crl.O.P.No.16392 of 2025 is dismissed and bail filed by A2 in Crl.O.P.No.18254 of 2025 is also dismissed.17.As regards A3 is concerned, she being a lady, her bank account used for transaction and an amount of Rs.1,31,440/- transferred to her account. The contention of A3 is that she is only housewife and not involved in the business of A1 & A2. Except for being a family member, Page No.13 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025there is no overtact against A3 and only a meagre amount transacted in her bank account that to by A1 & A2.18.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to A3. Accordingly, A3 is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, and on further conditions that: [a]the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b]A3 shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c]A3 shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d]A3 shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses; [e]A3 to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen Page No.14 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025days, she shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;[f]On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against A3 in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and A3 released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [g]If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 19.Crl.O.P.No.18254 of 2025 is allowed in so far as A3 is concerned.05.08.2025(1/3) Speaking Order/Non Speaking OrderIndex : Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/Novv2Page No.15 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025Note :1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.2.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Salem, Salem District.3.The Central Prison (Special Prison Women), Salem.4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.Page No.16 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 2025M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2PRE-DELIVERY COMMON ORDER INCrl.O.P.Nos.16392 & 18254 of 202505.08.2025(1/3) Page No.17 of 17