Karnataka HC refuses anticipatory bail to cop facing investigation in Bitcoin scam

Deputy Superintendent of Police Shridhar K Pujar had sought anticipatory bail in relation to an FIR registered by the Cottonpet police in 2023 for the offences punishable under IPC sections 204, 120B, 409 and 426.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused anticipatory bail to Shridhar K Pujar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is facing investigation relating to irregularities committed in the Bitcoin scam, of which he was the investigating officer at the relevant time. Justice M G Uma observed that it is shocking to see high ranking police officers stooping to the level of tampering documents with the help of the accused.

Pujar had sought anticipatory bail in relation to an FIR registered by the Cottonpet police in 2023 for the offences punishable under IPC sections 204, 120B, 409 and 426. The FIR was registered against the previous Investigating Officers and the police officers concerned with the Cottonpet crime registered against Srikrishna alias Sriki. This was after detecting that when the articles seized in that case were in lawful possession of the CCB police, additional files or mirror images were created without authorization. There was meddling with the electronic gadgets even after they reached the technical wing.

Pujar claimed that his name was not specifically mentioned in the complaint and that he has already been granted anticipatory bail in a similar case.

On the other hand, P Prasanna Kumar, special prosecutor representing the SIT, submitted that one witness, who is a cyber expert, had mentioned the name of Pujar on multiple occassions and specifically stated that it was Pujar who had drawn the 'panchanama' for seizing the gadgets from the custody of the accused Srikrishna alias Sriki. However, the petitioner had not taken the signatures of any of the witnesses, the SPP said. The witness also stated that when he opened the file, the officers demanded the report relating to all the files pertaining to 4,000 bitcoins.

Justice Uma said that the decisions relied upon by the prosecution throw much light about the stand that is to be taken against such high ranked police officials when serious allegations are made regarding the commission of offence in the garb of investigation.

“The allegations made against the petitioner and the co-accused shocks the conscience of the Court as well as the general public, where it is alleged that the petitioner and other police officers who hold high posts in the criminal justice system have stooped to a level of tampering with documents with the help of the accused in the case,” Justice Uma said.

The judge further said, “Therefore, I am of the opinion that there are prima-facie materials to reject such relief, looking to the nature and seriousness of the allegations, which are supported by the FSL and C-DAC reports and the statements of the witnesses referred to above recorded under Section 164 of CrPC.”