S.Elan Seliyan v. S.Maheswari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-02-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN S.Elan Seliyan ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

1. S.Maheswari 2.G.M.Subash 3.The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai -7.

Crime No.85 of 2025

...Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.12640 of 2025 in Crime No.85 of 2025 dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial or CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai), And CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai-08 and cancel bail of the accused 1 and 4 by allowing this Criminal Revision case.

For Petitioner(s):

Ms.M.Monisha For R1 and R2 :

For R3 :

No Appearance Mr.R.Vinoth Raja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The revision challenges the order of bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 herein, since the 3rd respondent had not filed the final report within the statutory time limit.

Page No.1/4

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 had cheated the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1 crore; that after the petitioner was released on bail, the pawn broker sent a reply to the notice issued by the petitioner making untenable allegations at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 herein and the respondents 1 and 2 are misusing the liberty granted to them and the bail granted to them is liable to be cancelled.

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

4. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent had not filed the final report within the statutory period of 60 days. The respondents 1 and 2 exercised their indefeasible right to be released on bail and the learned Magistrate released them on bail on certain conditions. The only ground raised by the petitioner/defacto complainant is that the pawn brokers with whom the accused Nos.1 and 2 had pledged the jewels have taken a stand which is contrary to the agreement and that the said stand is taken at the instance of the respondent 1 and 2. This Court is of the view that such a ground cannot be a reason to cancel the bail and cannot be construed as misusing the liberty granted to respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision. Page No.2/4

5. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 11-02-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Mac To

1. The Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial or CCB Cases (Relating to Cheating Cases in Chennai), And CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai-08

2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai -7.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Page No.3/4

SUNDER MOHAN J.

Mac 11-02-2026 Page No.4/4