B. Sabari Binny v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 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 anticipatory 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Page3 of 4

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, reiterated the prosecution case. He further submitted that no money has been recovered from the petitioners so far. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) contended that unless the petitioners 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 no recovery of the extorted money has been effected from the petitioners so far, this Court is of the firm view that it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

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

¶1The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Salem City Police Station.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o19706oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o19706oofo2026 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 1. B. Sabari Binny 2. Hari Prasaad 3. K.Vinu ..Petitioners Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Salem City Police Station. ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest made by the respondent police in Crime No.13 of 2026 dated 22.11.2025 on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioners: Mr.P.Kottaichamy For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)