Mohammad Gulam Mustafa v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mohammad Gulam Mustafa ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, CCD-1, Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai City.

Crime No.32 of 2024.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in event of his arrest in Crime No.32 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Syed Mazhar Hayath For Respondent : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 467 & 468 of IPC r/w Section 66D of I.T. Act in Crime No.32 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, who was employed in a private company, came across an online advertisement offering part-time employment and enrolled herself in the said online job scheme. Initially, she completed the assigned tasks and received payments. Subsequently, she was induced to remit various amounts on the pretext of compensating losses arising from an incomplete group task. Believing the representations made, she transferred a total sum of Rs.25,12,560/- to various bank accounts between 11.01.2024 and 20.01.2024, and later realized that she had been cheated through an online job scam. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is 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 petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/6

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the petitioner is alleged to have received certain amounts from A13 towards the sale of computer products, and on that basis, the respondent Police suspect his involvement in the alleged online fraud. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submitted that, in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may be directed to cooperate with the investigation, as his custodial interrogation is not essentially required. Taking into consideration the said fair submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties (out of which one shall be a blood related surety), for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

3/6

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 15 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

01.06.2026 kv 4/6

To 1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore. 2.The Inspector of Police, CCD-1, Cyber Crime Wing, Chennai City.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 01.06.2026 6/6