✦ High Court of India · 10 Jan 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 10 Jan 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

10 Jan 2025

Bench

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.

Length

1,503 words

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code §420 Indian Penal Code §43

Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.01.2025CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRACrl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024Milton John Mathew ... Petitioner Vs.The State represented by,Deputy Superintendent of Police,State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre,Ashok Nagar, Chennai -83. ... Respondent[FIR No.10 of 2023] PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2024 pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR.No.10 of 2023, dated 21.09.2023 on the file of the respondent.For Petitioner:Mr.Sunny Sheen AkkaraFor Intervener:Mr.Adinarayana RaoFor Respondent:Mr.S.SanthoshGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side) COMMON ORDER Apprehending arrest in connection with F.I.R.No.10 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC, Section 43(f), 43(j) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 20242.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant/Dr.Venkata Ramanaiah Dharimisetty is that the accused Milton John Mathew, who is a resident of Mogappair got introduced to him through cryto currency community with the name of Saitachain on twitter/X (@Saitachain) in the year January 2022 and proposed a business deal of 25% shares of TERAREUM and 500 trillion of Terareum tokens in return for 25000 USD, which is equivalent to Rs.22 Lakhs. Based on the inducement, the defacto complainant had invested Rs.22 Lakhs in Terareum LLC. The further case is that the value of the company through crypto had grown up multiple times to the tune of Rs.100 Crores and the defacto complainant's corresponding share of 25% has grown to Rs.25 Crores. Subsequently, the accused closed the business without the knowledge of the defacto complainant and cheated him by burning tokens of the crypto currency and cheated him by not returning his share equivalent to Rs.25 Crores. Hence, this case.3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is one of the Directors of Terrarum LLC, which is a limited liability company (LLC) registered before the appropriate Authorities in Wyoming, United States of America. The company was initially started with four partners viz., the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024petitioner, defacto complainant, Wilman Olmeda and Dr.Praveen Buddiga. It is true that the defacto complainant invested Rs.22 Lakhs in the Terareum LLC. Later due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the petitioner had refunded the amount of Rs.22 Lakhs to the defacto complainant on 15.01.2022 and 03.02.2022 by way of two transactions and there are also email communication with regard to the same. Meanwhile, the defacto complainant had obtained loans from one of the Directors of the Company viz., Dr.Praveen Buddiga, to the tune of 715,000 USD equivalent to Rs.6 Crores. Dr.Praveen Buddiga was insisting the defacto complainant to return the money and since he was the resident of USA, he had given Power of Attorney to the petitioner to collect the debt from the defacto complainant. Later, on 23.09.2022, the defacto complainant entered into a shareholder transfer agreement with Dr.Praveen Buddiga, agreeing to give up his 10% equity in Terareum LLC. Even after that the defacto complainant was liable to pay 215,000 USD to Dr.Praveen Buddiga and the same has not been repaid till date. 4.He would further submit that though the amount invested by the defacto complainant was returned to him, he was retainedas a Director in the company to safeguard the face of the company and to ensure the commitment of 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024the company towards the crypto currency community. During the end of 2022, the crypto market faced a huge crash that led to massive downfall of various tokens / coins. In order to sustain the company from crumbling to the market crash, the Directors of the company found it fit to burn 2.5 quadrillion developers tokens to a dead address to keep the company afloat. Accordingly, a board resolution had taken place on 31.01.2023 to take a vote on whether the coins on the developers wallet and marketing wallet ought to be burned. With 85% vote, the Board had decided to burn 9 quadrillion TERA coins [2.5 quadrillion from the developers wallets and 6.5 quadrillion from the marketing wallet]. This decision was taken to maintain stability in the market and to bolster some faith in the community. While such being the position, the defacto complainant to put pressure and wriggle out of the liability to Dr.Praveen Buddiga has given false complaint against the petitioner, who is one of the Directors of the company and not against the company, since the petitioner is a normal resident of India. He would also submit that the case had been registered in the year 2023 and that the respondent served summons to the petitioner and the petitioner had attended enquiry and had given all the details required by the respondent. Thereafter, the Bank accounts of the petitioner have also been frozen. Further, he would submit that any stringent condition may be imposed on the petitioner and prayed for grant 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024of anticipatory bail.5.Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner induced the defacto complainant to invest in Terareum LLC. Believing the words of the petitioner, the petitioner invested Rs.22 Lakhs i.e 25000 USD in the said company. Later, the value of crypto currency has gone up multiple fold to the several cores and the petitioner is liable to give 25% wallet amount which is equivalent to Rs.25 Crores to the defacto complainant, whereas, the petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the petitioner has deposited those amounts in 25 Bank Accounts which have been frozen and a Look Out Circular has also been initiated against the petitioner. The respondent Police has also sent a communication to the Financial Intelligence Unit, Government of India for further clarification in this case. Though the petitioner appeared before the respondent, he had not co-operated for the investigation and hence, objected for grant of bail.6.Learned counsel appearing for the Intervener would submit that the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024accused induced the defacto complainant to invest 25000 USD, which is equivalent to Rs.22 Lakhs in Terareum LLC. Based on the inducement, the defacto complainant had invested Rs.22 Lakhs in the said company. Further, over a period, the amount has grown up multiple times to the tune of Rs.100 Crores and the defacto complainant's share has multiplied to Rs.25 Crores. Subsequently, the accused closed the crypto currency business without the knowledge of the defacto complainant and cheated him by burning tokens of the crypto currency. Hence, he objected for grant of bail. 7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel appearing for the Intervener and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Police.8.Taking note of the fact that the case is being registered as early as on 23.09.2023 and also the fact that the petitioner appeared before the respondent for an enquiry and 25 Bank accounts of the petitioner have been forzen and that a LOC has also been issued, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions and accordingly, he is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen days from 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;[c] the petitioner shall deposit his passport before the Investigating Officer;[d] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police every friday at 10.30 AM., until further orders;[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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)AIR SCW 5560]; [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS. 10.01.2025rstTo1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai 2.Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre, Ashok Nagar, Chennai -83.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.rst9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 2024Crl.O.P.No.25005 of 202410.01.202510/10

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Indian Penal Code