In a significant development, the Karnataka High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a police inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police implicated in the Bitcoin scam case. Inspector Chandradhara SR and Deputy Superintendent of Police Shridhar K Pujar, accused number three and five respectively, saw their bail petitions rejected earlier by a sessions court.
Concerns over Evidence Tampering
Justice Rajendra Badamikar, in delivering the verdict, expressed concerns about potential manipulation of records and destruction of evidence by the accused officers, given their positions. He underscored the seriousness of the allegations, which included attempts to destroy evidence, rendering the bail petitions meritless.
Allegations of Illegal Activities
Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha, representing the Crime Investigation Department (CID), argued that the accused officers were involved in facilitating illegal activities, including fund transfers and Bitcoin transactions. The CID further contended that the officers colluded with other accused individuals to destroy evidence and evade legal consequences.
Court’s Observations
The court noted instances where the officers allegedly provided illegal substances to detainees and facilitated unlawful transactions. In light of the evidence presented, the court rejected the bail petitions, highlighting the need for further investigation into the Bitcoin scam case.
Background of the Case
The Bitcoin scam came to light during the previous BJP regime in 2021, with allegations of attempts to cover up the scandal due to involvement of prominent figures. The prime suspect, Srikrishna Ramesh alias Sriki, was accused of hacking the state government’s e-procurement site and embezzling over ₹11.5 crore, alongside charges of cryptocurrency theft, drug peddling, and cyber fraud.
Involvement of Officials
According to the FIR filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), the prime accused is Santhosh Kumar KS, CEO of GCID Technologies. The FIR implicates several police inspectors, including Chandradhara and Shridhar K Pujar, who were attached to the Central Crime Branch (CCB). The investigation revealed tampering of vital evidence by the accused officers, indicating a criminal conspiracy.
Conclusion
The denial of anticipatory bail underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the need for thorough investigation into the Bitcoin scam case. The court’s decision reflects a commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability in matters of corruption and illegal activities.
