Ge Tek Electronics Pvt. Ltd., v. The State Rep.By, Station House Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN GE TEK Electronics Pvt Limited Represented by its Director/ Authorized signatory E.Gunasekaran shed No.8, Phase VI, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Maraimalai Nagar, Chennai - 603 209.

... Petitioner Vs.

State Represented by Station House Officer, CCD-I, Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur - 600 119.

...Respondent

PRAYER in Crl.R.C.No.2647 of 2025: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS to aside the condition No.5(i) imposed in the judgement dated 09.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1497 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengelpet. PRAYER in Crl.R.C.No.2648 of 2025: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS to aside the condition No.5(i) imposed in the judgement dated 09.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1500 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengelpet. 1 / 5

For Petitioners :

Mr.K.Suhasini For Respondent :

Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

JUDGMENT

The Revision Petition has been filed seeking modification of the condition imposed in Crl.M.P.No.1497 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.Nos.1500 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025, by and which, the learned Magistrate had directed the petitioner to transfer the amount of Rs.6,83,109.07/- and Rs.8,44,607/- respectively to the petitioner, which was illegally transferred form the petitioner's account through on-line fraud.

2. The petitioner is a defacto complainant in Crime No.110 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 338 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology, 2008. The petitioner had lodged a complaint statin that the amount lying in his bank account was illegally siphoned of by certain accused through on-line fraud.

3. The respondent during the course of investigation, had frozen the accounts of two fraudsters (1) for a sum of Rs.6,83,109.07/- and (2) for a sum of Rs.8,44,607/-. Since the accounts belong to two different fraudsters, 2 / 5

petitioner had filed two different applications before the Magistrate seeking return of amounts which was frozen by the respondent.

4. The learned Magistrate allowed both the applications and imposed the condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.8,50,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum. The petitioner had challenged the onerous condition imposed by the learned Magistrate in the two cases. He would submit that, in the similar circumstances, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1937 of 2025 set aside the onerous condition to execute the bond for such a huge sum and directed the return of the amount.

3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

4. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a complainant, from whom, the aforesaid amount has been siphoned, this Court is inclined to set aside the condition imposed in Crl.M.P.No.1497 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.Nos.1500 of 2025 and directs the petitioners to execute a bond for a 3 / 5

sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in each of the cases with two sureties each for a like sum. The other conditions remain unaltered.

5. With above modifications, these revision petitions are ordered. sma 03.12.2025 4 / 5

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

sma To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengelpet.

2.Station House Officer, CCD-I, Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram Commissionerate, Sholinganallur - 600 119.

3..The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

03.12.2025 5 / 5