Ranidevi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Rajathani

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1461 of 2025 Ranidevi W/o.Rajendra Narasimman No.8 Periyar Ramasamy Street West Mambalam Chennai.

... Petitioner vs.

The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By Inspector of Police, Rajathani (Crime No.207/2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to set aside the condition No.2 in the order dated 31.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2995/2025 in R.P.R. No.393/2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side) 1/8

O R D E R

The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed with the following prayer:

"to set aside the condition No.2 in the order, dated 31.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2025 in R.P.R.No.393 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti."

2.Heard Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Thus, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's vehicle viz., Kia Motors India Private Limited bearing Reg.No.TN-09-CW-4883, was seized by the respondent Police in connection with Cr.No.207 of 2025 and was produced before the trial Court. The petitioner has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2/8

2025 in R.P.R.No.393 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, for interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, while allowing the application filed by the petitioner for interim custody, vide order, dated 31.10.2025, had imposed the following conditions:

"9.In this result, the petition is allowed and directed to return the KIA MOTORS INDIA PVT LTD Reg No. TN 09 CW 4883 to the petitioner in Interim Custody on the following conditions:

i The petitioner is directed to produce the original R.C. book of the above-said vehicle to this Court. ii.The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 20,00,0000/-In compliance with the above conditions, the vehicle may be released.

Iii.The petitioner shall not alienate or encumber the property, and he will not change the physical appearance of the vehicle till the final disposal of the case.

iv. A detailed Panchanama as per Judicial form No.82 is to be prepared.

v.The property shall be photographed and photographs and the Pendrive (along with 63 BSA certificate) shall be attached with the Form 95. The photographs shall be duly attested by the petitioner, and the head clerk of this court. vi.The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the Court whenever required."

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is aggrieved with the condition No.ii of Paragraph No.9 of the 3/8

order, dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, by which, the petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.20,00,000/-.

5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Car, which was seized by the respondent Police is not so expensive, imposing such a heavy bond upon the petitioner amounts to an unnecessary hardship and is contrary to the principles of fairness in the criminal proceedings. Thus, it was submitted that the condition No.ii of paragraph No.9, by which, the petitioner was directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.20,00,000/-, is unjustifiable and is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to comply with any conditions imposed by this Court and is ready to execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and thus, requested this Court to modify the condition No.ii of Paragraph No.9 imposed by the trial Court.

4/8

6.Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), who has accepted notice for the respondent, fairly submits that as the condition No.ii of Paragraph No.9 imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anditipatti, in Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2025 in R.P.R.No.393 of 2025, dated 31.10.2025, appears to be harsh, the same may be modified by this Court and the present Criminal Revision may be disposed of, accordingly.

7.Accordingly, after considering the arguments as advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anditipatti, in Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2025 in R.P.R.No.393 of 2025, dated 31.10.2025, this Court is of the opinion that the condition No.ii of Paragraph No.9 imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anditipatti, in Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2025 in R.P.R.No.393 of 2025, dated 31.10.2025, is unjustifiable and is liable to be modified, as the vehicle in question, namely, Kia Car, bearing Reg.No.TN-095/8

CW-4883, is an old car and is not expensive. Accordingly, the condition No.ii of Paragraph No.9 imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anditipatti, in Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2025 in R.P.R.No.393 of 2025, dated 31.10.2025, is modified as follows:

"The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-. In compliance with the above condition, the vehicle may be released."

Rest of the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anditipatti, in Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2025 in R.P.R.No.393 of 2025, dated 31.10.2025, are unaltered.

8.With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Petition is finally disposed of. The file is consigned to record. No order as to costs. Index :Yes / No 21.11.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No mm 6/8

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti.

2.The Inspector of Police, Rajathani 7/8

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

mm Order made in 21.11.2025 8/8