Magam Vinay Vardhan Vs The State rep by Inspector of Police

PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS to set aside the order of dismissal dated 17.12.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.16380 of 2025 in Crime No.16 of 2025 on the file of the CCB-1, Chennai by allowing the present Criminal Revision Petition.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Suthan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner challenges the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 497 r/w 503 BNSS insofar as his request for return of the gold ornaments seized during the course of investigation in crime No.16 of 2025.

¶16

2.The petitioner is an accused in the abovesaid crime number registered

¶17

for the offences under Section 420 IPC and Sections 10 & 24 of the Emigration Act.

¶18

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

¶19

2/4 CRL RC No. 11 of 2026

¶20

3.The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner along with the other accused had cheated various persons on the promise of obtaining job abroad and received a huge sum of money and failed to obtain job or return the money. During the course of investigation, the mobile phone, Laptop, Passport along with gold jewels weighing about 100 grams were seized. The petitioner sought

¶21

return of those articles before the trial Court. The trial Court allowed the said application insofar as the mobile phone and Laptop and dismissed the claim of the petitioner regarding gold ornaments.

¶22

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the gold ornaments seized from the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence; that the gold ornaments belong to the petitioner’s mother; that the ornaments are required for the use of the petitioner’s mother and therefore, the same may be returned to the petitioner on any stringent conditions.

¶23

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) per contra submitted that the value of the gold ornaments is more than Rs.12,00,000/- and that the petitioner had cheated several persons to the tune of more than Rs.2crores and that he has so far deposited Rs.1crore to the credit of the crime number.

¶24

6.It is not the case of the petitioner that the property, namely, the gold ornaments is a stolen property or that it created suspicion of commission of any

¶25

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

¶26

3/4 CRL RC No. 11 of 2026

¶27

offence. It is the petitioner’s case that the gold jewels have to be secured in the interest of the victims. According to the petitioner, the jewels belong to his mother. The said fact is not in dispute. If the jewels are needed to protect the interest of the victims, it is needless to say that Section 106 BNSS (corresponding to Section 102 Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked and only Section 107 BNSS can be invoked. Hence, this Court is of the view that the interim custody of the gold jewels can be directed to be returned to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶28

(i) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with

¶29

two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶30

(ii) the petitioner shall not alienate or alter the gold jewels in any manner

¶31

and shall return the same as and when required by the Trial Court;

¶32

(iii) it is made clear that if the respondent have evidence to show that the petitioner had purchased the gold jewels out of the crime proceeds, it is open to them to seek the attachment of the property in the manner known to law.

¶33

7.With the above observations, this revision stands allowed.

¶34

06-01-2026

¶35

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No sli

¶36

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

¶37

4/4

¶38

CRL RC No. 11 of 2026