Jeyakumar v. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.884 of 2025 in Crime No.33 of 2025 dated 22.10.2025, this Criminal Revision Case is filed.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had filed a petition under Section 497 and 503 of BNSS Act for transferring money from the suspicious account which was frozen by the respondent police to the Court account and subsequently transferred it to the petitioner's bank account. The learned trial court had, after carefully considering the petitioner's submission had recorded the no objection made by the respondent police to order for transferring the amount of Rs.18,19,842.36/- to the account of the petitioner. Further, it was observed that as per the records available before the trial Court, the amount of Rs.18,19,842.36/- has been transferred by the petitioner to the suspicious account and on the basis of the available record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.18,19,842.36/-. Thereafter the said petition was allowed with the condition that the respondent police should co-ordinate with the nodal officers/Bank Manager to the concerned bank for transferring the amount of ?17,94,305.14/- from suspect account No.42034388092, State Bank of India, IFSC SBIN 00300895, Rs.15,422.22/- from suspect Account No. 60515361375, Bank of Maharashtra IFSC MAHB 0000770, Rs.10,115/- from suspect account No.924010005574238, Axis Bank, IFSC: UTIB0000335 to the petitioner Account No.20005730964, State Bank of India, Lady Doak College Branch, IFSC : SBIN0010315 and report it before the trial Court on or before 05.12.2026. Further, the petitioner was directed to execute a bond for Rs.18,19,842.36/- with one surety and also further directed to produce the property as and when required by the Courts. However, challenging the same, the petitioner had filed this revision petition stating that though it is possible for him to execute a self bond for Rs.18,19,842.36/-, he finds it difficulty to arrange one surety for the said amount and sort for indulgence of this Court.

¶3Considering the fact that the learned trial Court itself had recorded that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.18,19,842.36/- and also the respondent police had in their counter affidavit submitted their no objection for transferring the said amount to the petitioners account, this court hereby modifies the second condition in the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.884 of 2025 dated 22.10.2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, by directing the petitioner to execute only a bond for Rs.18,19,842.36/-. The learned Trial Court is directed not to insist for one surety for the said amount.

¶4Accordingly this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

25.03.2026 NCC : yes / no Index : yes / no pnn To

¶1The Inspector of Police, CCD-III Police Station, Madurai City. In C.S.R.No.375/2025.

¶2The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL.oVICTORIAoGOWRI,J ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopnn oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoRC(MD)oNo.455oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o25/03/2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 25/03/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI Jeyakumar ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep., By the Inspector of Police, CCD-III Police Station, Madurai City. In C.S.R.No.375/2025. 2. State Bank of India, Ac.No.42034388092 IFSC. SBIN 00300895. 3. Bank of Maharashtra, Ac No.60515361375 IFSC. MAHB0000770. 4. Axis Bank, Ac. No.924010005574238 IFSC. UTIB0000335. 5.Fino Payments Bank, Ac No.20187873502 IFSC : FIN00000001. ... Respondents PRAYER :- To allow the Revision petition and set aside the order dated 22.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.884 of 2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai only in respect of second condition more particularly directing the petitioner to furnish one surety for Rs. 18,19,842.36/- as arbitrary. For Petitioner : Mr.A. Sheik Nasurdeen, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)