Dismissed¶27

M.Pachaimuthu v. State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Nov 2025CRL OP/20366/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail refused; cheating; cyber fraud; crypto currency; M/s.Hasphe Private Ltd.; false promise of returns in dollars; Sections 318(4) and 111 BNS 2023; Section 66 r/w 43 IT Act 2000; Section 482 BNSS 2023; Crime No.134 of 2024; Cyber Crime Police Station Puducherry; Rs.43,00,000/- collected; Rs.98,00,000/- from victims; investigation hampering; interim bail dated 23.10.2025 cancelled; Crl.O.P. dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since a huge amount of Rs.43,00,000/- has been transacted to the account of the petitioner, if anticipatory bail were granted he would hamper the investigation; the Court is therefore not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. ¶26

M.Pachaimuthu Vs State Rep by, The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20366 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.11.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20366 of 2025

¶7

M.Pachaimuthu ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Puducherry. (Crime No.134 of 2024) ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.134 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Ashokkumar Elumalai For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy, Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

¶12

¶13

1/5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.20366 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 111 of BNS, 2023, Section 66 r/w 43 of Information Technology Act, 2000, in Crime No.134 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the accused induced the defacto complainant and others to invest in M/s.Hasphe Private Ltd., with a false promise of huge returns in dollars. However, it revealed that the accused had cheated the investors, including the defacto complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been registered.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also a victim and he has not received any money. Further, he submitted that the petitioner is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent reported that the petitioner had received Rs.98,00,000/- from several victims and that this case involves Crypto currency transactions. Further

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.20366 of 2025

¶24

the investigation revealed that this petitioner alone collected a sum of Rs.43,00,000/- and he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

Considering the nature of the allegations levelled, this Court earlier has

¶26

directed the petitioner to appear and explain his case before the respondent police. However, the petitioner has appeared only two days and after obtaining time to produce documents has not come forward to comply the conditions. This Court on consideration of merits is of the view since huge amount of Rs.43,00,000/- has been transacted to the account of the petitioner, if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner he will hamper the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27