Malarkodi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Malarkodi, W/o.Gnanaprakasam, 32, Santhana Matha Kovil Street, Matha Kovil Street, K.Pudur, Madurai 625 007..

... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Pudukottai District.

Cr.No. 8/2026..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Ms.Vijayalakshmi M, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS 1/8

PRAYER :- C-24B. For Bail in Crime No. 8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 66D of Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 and 318(4) BNS @ 420 of IPC in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that as per the FIR on 07.12.2025, the defacto complainant saw an advertisement from facebook account named Tn OLD Coins and the said advertisement stated that old coins and old notes will be purchased at 100% of today's market value. Thereafter, the defacto complainant contacted the accused persons and instructed him to take photo of the old coins and sent it to them, due to which, the defacto 2/8

complainant took the photo and send it to him and they informed that the value of the coins was Rs. 41,00,000/- and the defacto complainant sent a total amount of Rs.6,82,500/- for registration fees and insurance fees. Thereafter, the accused persons cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she was falsely implicated in this case and she is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit the no amount has been transferred to the petitioner's account and she only instructed the defacto complainant to take photo of the old coins. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.05.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3/8

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has no previous cases.

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 considering the fact that as the date of occurrence is 07.12.2025 and FIR has been registered on 03.04.2026, by this time material part of the investigation might have been completed and the petitioner has no previous cases and even according to the prosecution, no amount has been transferred to the petitioner's account and she only canvassed the defacto 4/8

complainant and apart from that, no other allegations against the petitioner and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 19.05.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released 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-II, Pudukkottai District, 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 5/8

which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which 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 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 6/8

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) 19.06.2026 VSG TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Pudukkottai District.

2.

The Superintendent, District Jail, Pudukkottai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Pudukottai District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11697 of 2026 Date : 19/06/2026 8/8