← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10776/2026granted

Vinothkumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,

2026-06-17Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 17/06/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vinothkumar ... Petitioner/Accused Rank Not Known Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, C.C.W. Police Station, Trichy District.

(Crime No. 74 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 74 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioner : P.Pandia Rajan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to 1/6

judicial custody on 14.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 66D, 84B of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, in Crime No.74 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was induced by Jeyaraj and Aravinth, who allegedly promised commission for facilitating conversion of Indian Currency into USDT cryptocurrency. Based on that, USDT value at about Rs.50,00,000/- was transferred through binance wallets. Thereafter, the alleged recipients became unreachable and the complainant suffered loss. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner's name was not found in the FIR and there is an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR and the has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.05.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence committed by the accused is grave in nature and the investigation is still pending and the petitioner has 3 previous cases which are similar in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR and the occurrence took place on 25.11.2025 and FIR was registered on 01.05.2026 and hence, there is a delay in lodging an FIR and though the prosecution stated that the petitioner has 3 previous cases, in all cases he was already released on bail and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released 3/6

on bail on condition to 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalli, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take 4/6

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 BNS.

(P D B J) 17.06.2026 dss 5/6

P. DHANABAL,J DSS To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Inspector of Police, C.C.W. Police Station, Trichy District.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10776 of 2026 Date : 17/06/2026 6/6