Dinesh Kumar V S State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act, in Crime No.135 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner (A9), along with other accused, cheated de facto complainant through an online trading scam involving a sum of Rs.1,33,93,360/-. The amount was transferred to different accounts as suggested by the fraudsters under the pretext of investment in trading, and the petitioner is alleged to have received Rs.7,00,000/- as commission. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the co-accused/A2 and A4 were enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.13730 and 13872 of 2026 dated 03.06.2026. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner, by using a mobile application, induced the victims to invest in online trading and thereby cheated them of a sum of Rs.1,33,93,360/-.

Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 30.04.2026 and taking into consideration the release of the co-accused / A2 and A4 on bail, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of parity to the petitioner in line with the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.13730 and 13872 of 2026 dated 03.06.2026. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

[a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m., until further orders;

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

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.