IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.No.22998 of 2025 Mariappan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State by the Inspector of Police, Thondamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Team, Mines & Minerals, Coimbatore.

3. The Bank Manager, Union Bank of India, Negamam Branch, Pollachi

4. The Bank Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Sevalpatti Branch, Virudhunagar ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – VI, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.9120 of

2025 against Crime No.210 of 2024 dated 01.11.2025.

For Appellant : Mr.Abdul Saleem Senior Advocate for Ms.S.Deepika For R1 and R2 : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The revision challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate–VI, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P.No.9120 of 2025, dated 01.11.2025, in Crime No.210 of 2024, by which the learned Magistrate while allowing the de-freezing of the accounts of the petitioner had imposed the condition that the amounts lying in the bank accounts as on 01.11.2025 shall remain frozen.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know that Crime No.210 of 2014 has been registered for the offences under Section 303(2) of BNS read with 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and was later altered to Sections 111, 303(2), 318, 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS and Section 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation Act) 1957, based on the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer to the effect that an illegal mining took place between 23.08.2024 to 30.08.2024 in a land situate in S.F.No.248/1A owned by on V.N.Solai. The respondents on 22.02.2025 had sent a communication to the banks where the petitioner had maintained accounts, directing them not to permit the operation of the accounts. Thereafter the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.9120 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore, for de-freezing of those accounts, and by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate while ordering de-freezing of the accounts had observed that the amounts lying in the bank accounts as on 01.11.2025 shall remain frozen.

3. Mr.Abdul Saleen, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offences, that the prosecution has no basis to hold that the petitioner is guilty of the offences; and that in any case the freezing of the accounts is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code, that the learned Magistrate while holding that the accounts have to be de- frozen, had erroneously held that the amounts lying as on 01.11.2025 alone have to be frozen, which is without any basis, and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the amounts lying in the banks were the sale proceeds of the property that he sold in the year 2024 for a sum of Rs.94,00,000/- and therefore, it cannot be said that the said amounts were the proceeds of crime.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents

1 and 2, per contra, would submit that the petitioner is involved in the offences for which an investigation is still pending, and there are mobile phone and CDR records to prove the involvement of the petitioner; that the petitioner had frequently spoken to the lorry owners and royalty Collector, which would prove the involvement in the alleged crime; that the amounts which were sale proceeds was credited to his account maintained by him in Indian Overseas Bank, and subsequently the petitioner had transferred the said amount to another bank account and has been using the said amount for his personal purposes; and that the respondent has sufficient reasons to suspect that the amount which is l