Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 51703 (MAD)

Raha Oils Private Limited v. State, represented by The Inspector of Police

CRL OP/17600/2026 · 2026-07-08

D Bharatha Chakravarthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Crl.O.P.No.17600 of 2026 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.No.17600 of 2026 M/s. Raha Oils Private Limited, Rep. by S.Paranthaman, S/o.Sengodan, Manickanatham Road, Paramathi, Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal District – 637 207. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. 2. Baradi Siva Kumar S/o.Baradi Bramha Chary 3. Ashutosh Kumar S/o.Ramesh Mandal ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to modify the bail order dated 17.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2616 of 2026 in SCCIC Crime No.133 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, by directing the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, the compliance with condition (b) of the said bail order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17600 of 2026 __________ For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.Vishnu Vardhan : Mr.R.Rajasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking modification of the bail condition (b) imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.2616 of 2026 in SCCIC Crime No.133 of 2025, on 17.03.2026. 2. Upon perusal of the said order, it is observed that the same is a bail order. While granting bail to the accused, the accused were directed to deposit sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,80,000/- each before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that they are aggrieved by the same, in as much as the learned Session Judge did not order payment of the said sums to the petitioner. 4. Firstly, the petitioner has to make an application for the payment of the amount to them. It is true that Crl.R.C.No.2140 of 2025, at the FIR stage, the Court ordered the return of the amount to the defacto complaint. However, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17600 of 2026 __________ same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the accused who made the deposit should also be heard in the application made by the petitioner before a decision is reached. 5. In view thereof, the prayer sought for in this petition cannot be countenanced. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to make an application before the appropriate court. 6. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 08-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No jas To 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Principal Sessions Court, Tiruvallur 2. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, State Cyber Crime Investigation Centre, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17600 of 2026 __________ D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. jas Crl.O.P.No.17600 of 2026 08-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis