Muthukumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police,

ORDER The present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the condition imposed in paragraph no.6.2 vide order dated 13.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.768 of 2025 by Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram,

¶2The brief facts of the case are that petitioner transferred a sum of Rs. 91,17,963/- to one Adhira Sankar for bitcoin cryptocurrency. However, the said Adhira Sankar did not deliver any bitcoin/cryptocurrency to petitioner as promised. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint against Adhira Sankar, and a case was registered in Crime No. 1 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of the BNS Act and 66(D) of the IT (Amendment) Act. Pursuant to this, bank account of the said Adhira Sankar was frozen and a sum of Rs. 13,29,729/- is available in the bank account.

¶3In this connection, petitioner filed an application before learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ramanathapuram, for interim custody of the money available in the said bank account. Importantly, respondent police submitted that they have no objection to handing over the sum of Rs. 13,29,729/- to the petitioner. The relevant extract is as follows:- "The respondent police filed reply by stating that they had frozen the accused bank account and a sum of Rs.13,29,729/- is available in the said account. Further submitted that they have no objection in handing over Rs.12,62,119/- to the petitioner. Since it is online fraud, notice could be sent to the accused."

¶4Recording the same and after finding that there is no dispute regarding ownership of money lying in the said bank account and that petitioner is also entitled to a sum of 13,29,729/-, Trial Court vide order dated 13.06.2025 passed the following order:- "6.2. Accordingly, the petitioner is hereby directed to execute bond for a sum of Rs.13,29,729/- Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine Only) with two sureties against any 3rd party claim and undertaking to deposit the said amount as and when directed by this Court."

¶5Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that since petitioner is facing a liquidity crunch, he has not been able to comply with the conditions imposed by Trial Court. Therefore, he requested respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.13,29,729/- into his bank account and to permit him to operate only 50% of the said amount, with the remaining 50% to be kept as a lien.

¶6Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent has not raised any serious objections.

¶7In view thereof, the condition imposed by Trial Court in Paragraph No.

6.2 is modified as follows:- "The respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.13,29,729/- into the petitioner's bank account. Out of which 50% of money shall be utilized by petitioner and remaining 50% shall be kept as a lien."

¶8With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

09.02.2026 Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No rgm To

¶1The Inspector Of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Crime No.01 of 2025.

¶2The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District

¶3The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

,J.

rgm

09.02.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:09.02.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs State Of Tamilnadu, Rep by Inspector Of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Crime no.01 of 2025. ... Respondent Prayer: To call for the records and modify the condition in paragraph no.6.2 imposed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District, in the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.768 of 2025 dated 13.06.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathi For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate