Aravind v. The State Represented By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

17.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 204, 318(4) and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, Mr.C.John Frederick Solomon, an Assistant Volunteer Priest at the CSI Church in Salem, received a phone call on 27.05.2026, from an unknown individual. The caller introduced himself as Inspector Murali, attached to the Office of the Commissioner of Police and falsely informed the complainant that a criminal complaint involving Rs.2,00,000/- had been registered against him in Mumbai. The caller threatened that unless specific amounts were immediately transferred through online banking, the complainant would be arrested. Believing the said representation and acting under fear, the complainant transferred various sums on different dates to the bank accounts provided by the callers, which included remittances made into the bank account of the petitioner. In total, the complainant transferred an aggregate sum of Rs.15,05,500/- and was thereafter continuously threatened with further monetary demands. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.06.2026 and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the Page3 of 4 prosecution case and on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is the prime accused. He further submitted that the co-accused are currently absconding and have not been secured and that no money has been recovered from the petitioner so far. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) contended that unless the co-accused are apprehended, it would be difficult to recover the amount extorted from the complainant.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6Considering the seriousness of the allegation and the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that the co-accused are currently absconding, no recovery of the extorted money has been effected from the petitioner so far, this Court is of the firm view that it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 22-07-2026 NSL To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Cybercrime, Salem City Police Station.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o19279oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o19279oofo2026 22-07-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Aravind ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Cybercrime, Salem City Police Station. Salem. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.13 of 2026 dated 22.11.2025 pending on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Kottaichamy For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)