Dinesh Pushparaj v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

09.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 319(2), 340(2) and 111 of BNS Act and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act in Crime No.43 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2.According to the prosecution, the present case pertains to a digital arrest scam, wherein the accused by impersonating public officials and intimidating the victims, allegedly extorted a huge sum of money and jewels During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioners had allegedly procured nearly 3000 sim cards, which were used to facilitate the commission of the offense. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.06.2026. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a poor villager and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences.

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that the present case pertains to a "digital arrest" scam, wherein a sum of Rs.1.76 crores was allegedly extorted from the victims and 45 sovereigns of Page3 of 4 gold were also dishonestly obtained. It is further submitted that the petitioners had purchased nearly 3,000 SIM cards, which were allegedly used in the commission of the offence. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

5.I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is seen that the first accused, who is alleged to be the principal offender, has not yet been secured. The overt act attributed to the present petitioner is also of a serious nature. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a poor villager, the allegation that the petitioners had procured about 3,000 SIM cards for facilitating the commission of the offence cannot be ignored. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the fact that the investigation is still at a nascent stage, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13-07-2026 JRS Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS To

1.The Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Wing (CCD-1), Tambaram City. Crime No.43 of 2026

¶2The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. 13-07-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Dinesh Pushparaj S/o Pushparaj, No.185, Moonangadu, Onbadhampalli, Ramasamy Nagar, Salem,Kichipalayam post, Tamil nadu 636 015. 2. Yuvaraj Ayyanar S/o Ayyanar, No.3/4/55, Kottayevalavu, Parappatti, Salem. ..Petitioners Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Wing (CCD-1), Tambaram City. Crime No.43 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cirme No.43 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M/S. T.Balaji For Respondent(s): MR.S.YOGARAJA SEKAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE ) Page2 of 4