Ravi Nalina vs Inspector of Police

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
Crl.MP.No.20678 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012265592026}
Ravi Nalina, W/o Harry William,
No.17/9, Karaneeswarar Koil 1st Street,
Mylapore, Chennai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Police
Station, Coimbatore.
2. M. Rafi, S/o. Masthan Saidu, Brizo Apartments,
4th Floor, Murugan Nagar, Vilankurichi,
Coimbatore.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records, pertaining
to the order, dated 16-9-2026, passed in Crl.MP.No.6936 of 2026 in
CC.No.1570 of 2020, by the Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore and set
aside the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Balasubramaniam
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Dinesh, GA (Criminal Side)
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to call for the records, pertaining to the
order, dated 16-9-2026, passed in Crl.MP.No.6936 of 2026 in CC.No.1570 of
2020, by the Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore and set aside the same.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:-
(a) The Revision Petitioner is A2 and A1 is the husband of the Revision
__________
Page1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent herein is the complainant. The accused
had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,71,00,000/- from the complainant for the
purpose of their IT Company, namely M/s.Spectrum Hi-Style Shoppers
Private Limited, assuring to transfer 50% share of the Company in favour
of the complainant. However, as assured, the accused had not transferred
such share in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused had paid
st
partly, a sum of Rs.49,27,000/- to the complainant. The 1 accused had
started a new company on 11.09.2019, in the name of M/s.Smith Field
Retail Private Limited. Even thereafter, neither the agreed share was
transferred nor the balance amount of loan was repaid. Hence, a
complaint was filed by the complainant, against the accused in Cr.No.61
of 2019, on the file of the Respondent Police. A1 was, subsequently,
released on bail.
(b) The Revision Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, in
Crl.OP.No.34132 of 2019, by the order dated 13.01.2020, by imposing a
condition, among other conditions that “the Revision Petitioner shall
directly pay to the defacto complainant a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/-,
without prejudice to her rights and produce the proof of such payment
before the lower trial court on 17.06.2020”. However, the said condition
was not complied with by the Revision Petitioner.
(c) In the mean time, the Revision Petitioner had filed Crl.OP.No.491 of
2021, to quash the FIR in Crime No.61 of 2019, which was dismissed on
__________
Page2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
05.08.2022. Thereafter, the Respondent Police had filed a final report in
CC.No.1570 of 2020 before the Trial Court and the trial is pending.
(d)Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner had filed a modification petition to
modify the condition of payment of Rs.1,10,00,000/- in
Crl.MP.Sr.No.63368 of 2022 in Crl.OP.No.34132 of 2019 on 22.12.2022.
Pending the said modification petition, the Trial Court, in
Crl.MP.No.45094 of 2022, by the order dated, 26.12.2022, had cancelled
the bail granted by this Court in Crl.OP.No.34132 of 2019 and
consequently, NBW was issued against the Revision Petitioner.
(e) Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner had filed another anticipatory bail
application before this Court in Crl.OP.Sr.No.1607 of 2023, which was
dismissed by the order dated 23.03.2023, with a liberty to challenge the
order, dated 26.12.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.VII,
Coimbatore in Crl.MP.No.45094 of 2022. Then, the Revision Petitioner
had filed a petition in Crl.OP.No.11175 of 2023, before this Court,
challenging the said order dated 26.12.2022, passed in Crl.MP.No.45094
of 2022 and the same was also dismissed by this Court, on 01.02.2024.
The Revision Petitioner had filed Crl.OP.No.4733 of 2025, before this
Court, in connection with NBW issued by the Trial Court and it was also
dismissed by this Court, on 16.10.2025.
(f) Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner had filed SLP(Criminal ) Diary
No(s).71543 of 2025, before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was
__________
Page3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
disposed of, on 20.02.2026, giving liberty to the Revision Petitioner to
move an application before concerned Court, on the undertaking given by
the Revision Petitioner that she will surrender within a period of one
week from the date of the order.
(g)Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner had filed a bail petition in
Crl.MP.No.3311 of 2026 before the Trial Court and bail was granted to
the Revision Petitioner, by the order dated 10.04.2026, on a condition,
among other conditions that the Revision Petitioner shall deposit a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/- within ten days. Subsequently, the Revision Petitioner
was released on bail on fulfilling such conditions and also on such deposit
of Rs.50,00,000/-, before the Trial Court.
(h)Pending the trial, the complainant had filed a petition under Section 497
of BNSS, in Crl.MP.No.6396 of 2026, before the Trial Court, seeking
interim custody of the money, deposited by the Revision Petitioner.
(i) By the impugned order, dated 16.09.2026, the Trial Court, relying on the
judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court, reported in (2015) 2 SCC
313 ( Rakesh Baban Borhade v. State of Maharashtra) (SLP.Nos.3527-
3528 of 2014), had allowed the said petition and granted interim custody
of Rs.50 lakhs in favour of the complainant/2nd Respondent, on
conditions that the complainant/2nd Respondent shall execute a bond for
Rs.50/- lakhs and produce two sureties each for Rs.25,00,000/-, in that
one surety must be blood surety .
__________
Page4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
(j) In the impugned order, the Trial Court, while granting such interim
custody, had also made clear that the release of the aforesaid amount is
subject to the result of the pending litigation. As against the same, this
Criminal Revision Case has been filed, by the Revision Petitioner/A2.
3. This Court heard Mr.K.Balasubramaniam, the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal side) for the 1st Respondent and considered their submissions and
also perused the entire materials placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Trial
Court erred in treating the subsequent bail order dated, 10.04.2026, as if it
was a continuation or enforcement of the earlier monetary direction, given in
the order, dated 13.01.2020 and that the Trial Court failed to consider that the
fresh bail order dated 10.04.2026 contains a separate and independent set of
bail conditions and that the fresh bail order does not state anywhere that the
said Rs.50 lakhs shall be paid or released in favour of the complainant/2nd
Respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that the
earlier order dated 13.01.2020 and the subsequent bail order dated 10.04.2026
operate in entirely different circumstances and that the earlier order is related
to anticipatory bail, whereas the subsequent order was passed, after the
Revision Petitioner had surrendered, pursuant to the liberty granted by the
Honourable Supreme Court and that the earlier undertaking or order cannot
__________
Page5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
enlarge the statutory jurisdiction of the Trial Court under Section 497 of
BNSS and that the Trial Court had exceeded the scope of Section 497 of
BNSS and that the said amount was not a seized property, recovered property
or property, identified during the investigation, as belonged to the
complainant/2nd Respondent, but, it was an amount deposited by the
Revision Petitioner, pursuant to a bail condition.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the
impugned order thereby gives the complainant/2nd Respondent a substantial
monetary advantage before adjudication of the criminal case, which is
contrary to the fundamental principle that an accused is presumed innocent,
until proved guilty and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, by
allowing this Criminal Revision Case.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the 1st
Respondent has submitted that since the Revision Petitioner had given an
undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- directly to the complainant,
while granting ancipatory bail to the Revision Petitioner, in
Crl.OP.No.34132 of 2019, by the order dated 13.01.2020, the Revision
Petitioner is bound by such an undertaking given before this Court, which
was not complied with and hence, the complainant/2nd Respondent is entitled
for the interim custody of the amount of Rs.50 lakhs, deposited by the
Revision Petitioner, in view of the conditional bail order, dated 10.04.2026,
granted by the Trial Court.
__________
Page6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
8. The learned Government Advocate has further submitted that the impugned
order is not a final verdict and it preserved the rights of the parties and that
granting interim custody of the money does not, by itself, amount to a finding
of guilt of the accused and that the Trial Court had also made an observation
that such interim custody is subject to the result of the pending litigation
between the parties and therefore, the Trial Court is justified in passing the
impugned order, granting interim custody of Rs.50 lakhs, in favour of the
complainant/2nd Respondent, however, on certain condition that the
complainant/2nd Respondent shall execute a bond for Rs.50/- lakhs and
produce two sureties each for Rs.25,00,000/-, in that one surety must be
blood surety and that on the grounds of justice, equity and estoppel, the Trial
Court had passed the impugned order, which does not call for any
interference, by this Court.
9. The questions that arises for consideration are as to (i) whether the order
passed by the Trial Court under Section 497 of BNSS suffers from any
illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity, warranting interference
in revision, by this Court and (ii) whether the grant of interim custody of the
deposited amount, to the complainant/2nd Respondent, subject to conditions,
can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case?
10. Section 497 of BNSS empowers the competent Criminal Court to make
appropriate orders, concerning the custody and disposal of property,
produced before it, during the investigation, inquiry or trial. The Explanation
__________
Page7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
to the provision includes property, produced before the Court or in its
custody. The exercise of such power must, however, be guided by the nature
of the property and the circumstances in which it came into the Court's
custody.
11.This Court is conscious that the power under Section 497 BNSS cannot be
used as a substitute for a civil recovery proceeding. Nor can the release of
money be ordered merely because the complainant/2nd Respondent has made
allegations against the accused. But, the complainant/2nd Respondent’s claim
must be assessed on the materials available, and the Court must ensure that
interim custody does not become a final adjudication of disputed rights and
that the rights of the parties are not affected.
12.In the present case, the impugned order is required to be assessed, on its own
merits and not merely with reference to the earlier conditional bail order,
monetary direction. If the impugned order is supported by an independent and
legally sustainable exercise of power under Section 497 BNSS, and if the
conditions imposed, adequately protect the interests of the parties, the mere
fact that the amount originated from a bail-related deposit would not, without
further examination, resolve every question, with regard to its custody.
13.The scope of revisional jurisdiction is supervisory. Interference is warranted,
where the impugned order discloses an error of law, a jurisdictional defect, a
material irregularity or a miscarriage of justice. However, the revisional
Court has to examine, whether the Trial Court has applied the correct
__________
Page8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
statutory provision and considered the relevant circumstances.
14.In the present case, the alleged transaction between the parties and the legal
proceedings took place, as stated above, are not disputed. First of all, it is to
be noted that in the earlier anticipatory bail proceedings, the Revision
Petitioner had undertaken to pay directly a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- , to the
complainant/2nd Respondent, as a precondition, among other conditions,
while granting antcipatory bail to the Revision Petitioner, by this Court, by
the order, dated, 13.01.2020. However, without complying with the
monetary conditions, the Revision Petitioner had went upto the Honourable
Supreme Court and protracted the proceedings, for more than five years and
till this date, by initiating legal proceedings, one after another. Thus, the
Revision Petitioner has no intention, at all, to comply with the monetary
conditional orders of this Court.
15.In the present case, the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was deposited, by the
Revision Petitioner, pursuant to the conditional bail order, dated 10.04.2026.
The fact that the deposit was made under a bail condition is a relevant
circumstance, but the question whether the Trial Court can, thereafter, pass an
order, relating to custody of the money, must be examined in the context of
the statutory provisions and the particular terms of the orders, passed in the
earlier proceedings, passed by this Court.
16.The Revision Petitioner places reliance upon the distinction between the
earlier anticipatory bail order, dated 13.01.2020 and the subsequent bail order
__________
Page9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
dated 10.04.2026. It is true that the subsequent bail order must be construed,
according to its own terms and cannot automatically be treated as an
enforcement of continuation of the earlier direction of this Court, to pay
Rs.1,10,00,000/-, as a pre-condition, while granting anticipatory bail to the
Revision Petitioner, in the earlier proceedings.
17.However, the earlier proceedings form part of the background, in which the
subsequent bail order was passed. The underlying transaction, the allegations
with respect to non-repayment of the amount, the earlier monetary direction
and the subsequent deposit are relevant circumstances to be considered. Such
circumstances cannot, by themselves, determine the complainant/2nd
Respondent’s final entitlement to the money, but they may be considered,
while deciding an application, in respect of interim custody, provided the
requirements of Section 497 BNSS are independently satisfied.
18.The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rakesh Baban Borhade
v. State of Maharashtra , (2015) 2 SCC 313 , is also relevant. In that case, the
Honourable Supreme Court had permitted the complainant to withdraw a sum
of Rs.1 crore, deposited pursuant to an order passed, during the anticipatory-
bail proceedings. The withdrawal was expressly made, without prejudice to
the contentions of the parties and subject to the result of the pending
litigation.
19.However, the said decision of the Honourable Supreme Court does not
establish an automatic entitlement in favour of a complainant/2nd
__________
Page10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
Respondent to withdraw every amount deposited pursuant to a bail order.
However, it demonstrates that in an appropriate case and subject to suitable
safeguards, an order concerning withdrawal of money deposited during bail
proceedings may be considered, in the particular circumstances of the case.
The decision must not be read beyond the terms of the relief, actually granted
by the Honourable Supreme Court.
20. Interim custody of the money does not, by itself, amount to a finding of guilt
of the accused. In the present case, on the principles of justice, equity and
estoppel, the Trial Court had granted interim custody subject to the
conditions, as stated above, preserving the rights and interests of the parties.
The effect and adequacy of those conditions must be assessed from the
complete impugned order. If the conditions require the recipient to preserve
the amount, furnish appropriate security and restore it in accordance with
further orders of the competent Court, they may protect the Revision
Petitioner's interests, while the criminal case remains pending. The interim
arrangement must not be treated as a final determination of the
complainant/2nd Respondent’s entitlement.
21.The Trial Court, in the impugned order, had specifically and categorically,
made an observation that such interim custody of the money, in favour of the
complainant/2nd Respondent, will be subject to the result of the pending
litigation. Since the conditions imposed by the impugned order adequately
preserve the rights and interest of the parties, this Court finds no sufficient
__________
Page11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
ground to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction. The release of the amount shall not operate as a final
adjudication of the complainant/2nd Respondent’s monetary claim or as a
finding of guilt, as against the Revision Petitioner.
22.Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the terms of the impugned
order, this Court finds that the Trial Court had exercised its statutory
jurisdiction to regulate interim custody, and not on the footing that the earlier
anticipatory-bail condition automatically entitled the complainant/2nd
Respondent to receive the amount.
23.Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussions and observations and in
view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, referred to above, this
Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The impugned order, dated 16.09.2026
passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, in Crl.MP.No.6936 of
2026 in CC.No.1570 of 2020 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected Crl.MP is closed.
24.It is made clear that the interim custody granted to the complainant/2nd
Respondent shall not be construed as a final determination of his entitlement
to the amount. The rights and contentions of the parties, concerning their
ultimate monetary claims are left open to be determined by the competent
forum, in accordance with law. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial,
uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order and decide the
case expeditiously.
__________
Page12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
29-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRCM
To
1. Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore
2. Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore.
__________
Page13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )

CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SRCM
CRL RC No. 2447 of 2026
29-10-2026
__________
Page14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 04:40:04 pm )