K.T.Rajenthra Bhalaji v. The Superintendent of Police

ORDER This writ petition (Crl.) has been filed seeking to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to defreeze the bank accounts maintained by the petitioner in the 4th to 9th respondent banks by considering the petitioner's representation dated

08.11.2025 and allow the petitioner to operate the same within the time stipulated by this Court. Page3 of 8

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is a senior political functionary who served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a Minister in the State Government for a tenure of ten years. In the year 2021, the respondent police registered two criminal cases against him in Crime Nos. 19 of 2021 and 20 of 2021 on the file of the Virudhunagar District Crime Branch. Immediately following the registration of these FIRs, the investigating agency proceeded to freeze eight bank accounts belonging to the petitioner, ostensibly to secure the alleged proceeds of crime during the pendency of the investigation.

3.The petitioner is aggrieved by what he describes as the indiscriminate and indefinite freezing of his entire financial ecosystem. Among the frozen accounts are his Pension Account at Indian Bank, MLA Hostel Branch, which serves as his primary source of sustenance, and his Housing Loan Accounts at the Bank of India, which represent liabilities rather than assets. He contends that the freezing of loan accounts prevents him from servicing his debts, thereby artificially creating a default status and causing irreparable damage to his creditworthiness, while the freezing of the pension account deprives him of his fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Since the investigation in the subject crimes has concluded and the Final Report (Charge Sheet) has already been filed before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar, the petitioner argues that the necessity to Page4 of 8 keep the accounts frozen has ceased to exist. Relying on settled legal positions, he asserts that the power to freeze accounts under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. is for the specific purpose of investigation, and continued freezing post-investigation acts as an impermissible pre-trial punishment.

4.Mr. E. Mareeskumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that while the petition initially concerned several banks, it has since come to light that the petitioner possesses five bank accounts, three of which, maintained with State Bank of India, Indian Bank, and Canara Bank, remain frozen. He further contended that the respondent police committed an illegality by failing to intimate the concerned Court after freezing the accounts.

5.The learned counsel further submitted that since no action was taken on the petitioner's representation dated 08.11.2025 by the respondents 2 and 3, and the petitioner remains unable to operate the accounts due to the restrictive communications issued by the respondent police, he has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition for necessary relief.

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed, stating that in Crime No. 19 of 2021, the de facto complainant, Mr. S. Ravindran, allegedly paid a sum of ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) in cash to the accused, Mr. Muthupandian, on the Page5 of 8 instructions of the petitioner, Mr. K.T. Rajenthira Bhalaji, in connection with a job scam. Similarly, in Crime No. 20 of 2021, the de facto complainant, Mr. Vijaya Nallathambi, allegedly paid ₹1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty Lakhs only) in cash on various occasions to other accused persons, namely Mr. Baburaj, Mr. Balaraman, and Mr. Muthupandian, also acting on the instructions of the petitioner. It was further submitted that a perusal of the charge sheets in both cases reveals that the money was paid in cash to various co-accused based on the direct instructions of the petitioner herein.

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that since the Final Report has been filed, much water has flown under the bridge, and the petitioner's proper remedy is to approach the concerned Trial Court. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Shento Varghese vs. Julfikar Husen and Others [(2024) 7 SCC 23], he contended that the validity of the exercise of power under Section 102(1) of the Cr.P.C. can be questioned on jurisdictional grounds or merits before the concerned Trial Court rather than through a writ petition.

8.Taking into consideration the submissions made and the current stage of the criminal proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the petitioner liberty to seek relief before the jurisdictional court. Page6 of 8

9.Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Crl.) is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court challenging the communications of the respondents freezing the bank accounts, if so advised. Furthermore, the respondents are directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 08.11.2025 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. 12-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SHA To

¶1The Superintendent Of Police Virudhunagar,

¶2The Deputy Superintendent of Police Virudhunagar District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar.

¶3The Inspector Virudhunagar District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. Page7 of 8

¶4The Branch manager Bank of India, Sivakasi Branch,

¶5The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Thiruthangal Branch, Sivakasi Taluka,

¶6The Branch Manager Canara Bank, Rajapalayam,

¶7The Branch Manager Q-872 Thiruthangal Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society,

¶8The Branch Manager The Virudhunagar District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited,

¶9The Branch Manager Indian Bank, MLA Hostel Branch, Chennai. Page8 of 8

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. SHA 12-03-2026

Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and WMP Crl. (MD) No.532 of 2025 K.T.Rajenthra Bhalaji Former minister (Ex.MLA) ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Superintendent Of Police Virudhunagar, 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Virudhunagar District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. 3. The Inspector Virudhunagar District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. 4. The Branch manager Bank of India, Sivakasi Branch, 5. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Thiruthangal Branch, Sivakasi Taluka, 6. The Branch Manager Canara Bank, Rajapalayam, Page2 of 8 7. The Branch Manager Q-872 Thiruthangal Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Society, 8. The Branch Manager The Virudhunagar District Central Co- Operative Bank Limited, 9. The Branch Manager Indian Bank, MLA Hostel Branch, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to defreeze the bank accounts maintained by the petitioner in the 4th to 9th respondnet banks by considering the petitioner representation dt. 08.11.2025 and allow the petitioner to operate the same within the time stipulated by this Honble Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.E.Mareeskumar For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Balasubramanian For R4 Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Additional Public Prosecutor For R1 To R3