Mubarak v. The Inspector Of Police, Cyber Crime

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 12503 of 2026 1.Mubarak 2.Rafiq ...petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No.8 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For petitioners : Ms.M.Vijayalakshmi Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody 19.05.2026 for the offence punishable under Section 66D Information Technology Amendment Act and Sections 318 (4) BNS @ 420 of IPC, in 1/6

Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on seeing the advertisement in the Facebook the defacto complainant approached the accused persons. They have stated that they will give 100% market value to the old coins and they further stated that the defacto complainant is having the coins to the value of Rs.41,00,000/- and for that he would pay the registration fee and insurance fee. Believing the words of the petitioners, the defacto complainant gave a sum of Rs.6,82,500/- as registration fees and insurance fees as directed by the accused persons. Thereafter they did not give the money as they told and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners name was not found in the FIR. On the basis of the confession statement of the A1 this petitioners have been implicated in this case. Coaccused has also released on bail. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the 2/6

respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The main accused was arrested and released on bail. These petitioners have been implicated on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused. The petitioners have no previous cases. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

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, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners have no previous cases against them, the co-accused in this case has been released on bail, and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

3/6

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days, thereafter as and when required for interrogation:

[c] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 51730]. 4/6

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 25.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukkottai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.8 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Pudukottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12503 of 2026 Date : 25.06.2026 6/6