Allowed

K.Ramalinga Jothi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Nov 2024CRL RC/1715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside a lower court order, and directed the return of documents to be substituted with a certified copy, ensuring the petitioner does not alienate the property.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order passed by XI Additional Special Court; directed return of documents No.8331-33 of 2011 to be substituted with certified copy; imposed restriction on alienating property.

K.Ramalinga Jothi Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 25.11.2024

¶4

CORAM: MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2024

¶6

K.Ramalinga Jothi ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai. (Crime No.RC.MA1 2015 A 0030) ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Revision petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases in Crl.M.P.No.5305 of 2024 dated 26.07.2024.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Karthick Srinath

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.396 in a case where the

¶14

prosecution has met 446 accused persons in a matter involving multiple

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2024

¶18

1988.

¶19

offences under various provisions of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶20

This Court is informed that the accusation against the present petitioner was that he had collected money indiscriminately from various persons, who were not eligible to be appointed as sweepers and messengers for the Bank in which he was working. That, however, is not very germane for the current purpose.

¶21

Earlier, in the course of investigation, the CBI is said to have frozen the Bank locker of the petitioner, which contained several gold jeweleries. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for releasing those jewelry, as he needed them for his daughter's marriage in Crl.R.C.No.749 of 2016, wherein this Court has directed the petitioner to substitute a security equivalent to the value of the jewelery. Accordingly, he tendered the original title deed of his residential property, and he now requires the said original document No. 4825 of 1989 to be substituted with a certified copy.

¶22

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2024

¶24

Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) has filed his

¶25

counter and made his submissions too.

¶26

5.Heard both sides.

¶27

In the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the current value of the security, which is required to be furnished for a value of Rs.25,00,000/-, is 10 times more, and it is now worth around Rs.2.50 Crores. He also brought to the notice of the Court the undertaking given by the petitioner in Paragraph 10 of his affidavit, wherein the petitioner had undertaken that he would not alienate the property covered by the said document No.4825 of 1989.

¶28

In view of the undertaking given, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this petition, however, with a rider that the petitioner shall not alienate or otherwise encumber the property covered by the document No.4825 of 1989, without the permission of this Court.

¶29

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2024

¶31

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶32

Anu

¶33

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. The order passed by the XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases is set aside and the learned XI Additional Special Judge is directed to return the document No.8331 of 2011, Doc.No.8332 of 2011 and Doc.No.8333 of 2011, after substituting the same with the certified copy to be furnished by the petitioner.

¶34

25.11.2024

¶35

Anu Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶36

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai.

¶37

The XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases

¶38

Crl.R.C.No.1715 of 2024

¶39

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Ramalinga Jothi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramalinga Jothi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sasikala, F/54 Vs State by

R.Karthick Vs the State Secretary

S.M.Shafi, Vs B.Sivakumar

Ubaiadhulla Vs State Represented by

P.Baskar Naidu, M/62 Years Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Sivagami Vs State Represented by