Police verification of ownership and lack of rival claims mandate the release of frozen funds.

The petitioner, Usen Sherief, was a victim of an online fraud resulting in a loss of Rs. 19,76,777/-

Following his complaint, the respondent police registered a case (CSR No. 21/2026) and subsequently froze Rs. 5,57,620/- found in the bank accounts of the alleged fraudsters

The petitioner moved a petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the BNSS (Crl.M.P.No. 217 of 2026) before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Chengalpattu, seeking the release of the frozen amount

The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on February 18, 2026, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to establish entitlement

The petitioner challenged this dismissal via the present Criminal Revision Case

1. Whether the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition for release of the frozen amount despite the investigating agency’s admission of the petitioner's ownership

2. Whether the petitioner established a prima-facie entitlement to the recovered sum of Rs. 5,57,620/-

The court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

It applied the principle that when an investigating agency verifies a claimant’s identity and ownership of recovered property and confirms the absence of rival claimants, the court must exercise its jurisdiction to release such property to the rightful owner

Reliance was placed on the procedural mandate that orders must reflect an application of mind to the evidentiary materials and the specific stance of the prosecution/police regarding the property in question

The High Court found that the Magistrate’s order suffered from non-application of mind because it ignored vital records and the categorical admissions made by the police

The petitioner had submitted documents establishing his identity and the source account of the transfer

Crucially, the respondent police filed a counter-affidavit both before the Magistrate and the High Court explicitly stating that the frozen sum of Rs. 5,57,620/- belonged to the petitioner and that no other party had laid claim to it

The Court reasoned that since the investigating agency itself verified the claim and expressed "no objection" to the release, the Magistrate's conclusion regarding a lack of evidence was factually incorrect and legally unsustainable

The Court held that the petitioner sufficiently established prima-facie entitlement to the funds

The respondent police were directed to take necessary steps to release Rs. 5,57,620/- into the petitioner’s City Union Bank account

Further, Deutsche Bank and Saraswat Co-operative Bank were directed to cooperate with the police to facilitate the transfer within three weeks