BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to police inspector Chandradhara SR and Deputy Superintendent of Police Shridhar K Pujar, a proclaimed offender, in connection with the crime registered in relation to the Bitcoin scam.
They are accused No. 3 and 5 respectively in the crime registered by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) under provisions of the IPC and Information Technology Act, 2000. They approached the high court for anticipatory bail as their petitions were rejected by the sessions court.
“The petitioners being the police officers holding high positions, there are higher chances of manipulating the records as well as destruction of evidence, as there is already an allegation of attempt of destruction of the evidence. Hence, looking into the facts and circumstances, both the petitions being devoid of any merits do not survive for consideration and need to be rejected,” said Justice Rajendra Badamikar.
Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha, on behalf of CID, argued that the crypto wallet containing 31 Bitcoins worth Rs 9 crore was seized under mahazar on January 8, 2021. But later, another mahazar was drawn on January 22, 2021, making a simple assertion that it was only a mirror image and nothing was seized. It is alleged that the petitioners had the custody of accused Robin Khandelwal and had facilitated accused No.1 to transfer Rs 2,53,160 from the Paytm account of Robin and Bitcoin worth the same amount purchased from Wazir Exchange.
CID also contended that the petitioners, being investigating officers, along with other accused, colluded to destroy evidence for wrongful gain and to screen themselves from legal consequences. They kept accused Shriki and Robin Khandelwal in illegal police custody and provided them with all the liberty with a laptop to hack exchanges to get Bitcoins. They were also instrumental in providing the contraband Xanz to Shriki when he was in police custody and allowed him to send a mail to his friend.
CID said it showed that the petitioners, instead of investigating the crime, had used Robin and Shriki to illegally transfer Bitcoins. Subsequently, they were missing. The conduct of the petitioners revealed that they played with the accused for recovery of Bitcoins and material evidence, but subsequently destroyed the evidence.
Noting that the records primafacie establish that petitioners have attempted to destroy evidence and assisted the accused in custody during the investigation of the crimes to have unlawful gain, the court rejected the bail petitions.