Dismissed¶33

Suthakar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC7 Nov 2025CRL A/1365/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail cancellation - Section 430 B.N.S.S - Madras High Court - Crl.A.No.1365 of 2025 (07.11.2025, T.V. Thamilselvi J.) - defacto complainant Suthakar sought cancellation of bail granted to accused Ragavendran, Rajkumar and Ajith Kumar by District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 - ground of non-appearance of accused rejected; appearance verification held to be duty of police and prosecution - bail order confirmed, petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the period of incarceration, the nature of the offences and that the injured was discharged from hospital, the bail order of the court below needs no interference. ¶28

Suthakar Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail granted to Respondents 3 to 5 in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 should be cancelled, the main ground being that the accused are not appearing before the Court below despite the bail granted.

¶30

Court's answer

Considering the period of incarceration, the nature of the offences and that the injured was discharged from hospital, the bail order of the court below needs no interference.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

It is the duty of the respondent police and the prosecution to verify whether the accused are appearing; if the accused do not co-operate with the investigation, necessary action will be taken against them by the respondent police and prosecution; it suffices that the petitioner co-operates with the investigation and trial.

¶30

Key takeaways

The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 by the District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai is confirmed; the petition is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (T.V. Thamilselvi, J.) declined to cancel the bail granted to Respondents 3 to 5 by the District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025. The petitioner, the defacto complainant, alleged that the accused attacked him, caused grievous injuries and were not appearing before the Court below after release on bail. Noting the period of incarceration (73 days from remand on 27.05.2025), the nature of the offences, and that the injured was admitted in hospital on 26.06.2025 and discharged on 04.07.2025, the Court held the bail order needed no interference. On non-appearance, the Court held that verifying whether the accused appear is the duty of the respondent police and prosecution, who must take necessary action if the accused fail to co-operate with investigation; the petitioner need only co-operate with investigation and trial. Petition under Section 430 of B.N.S.S dismissed; bail order confirmed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.11.2025

¶2

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶3

Crl.A.No.1365 of 2025

¶4

Suthakar ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of police Office, Sirkazhi, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶7

2.The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, Poriyar Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶8

Ragavendran

¶9

Rajkumar

¶10

Ajith Kumar ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : This petition is filed under Section 430 of B.N.S.S to cancel the bail order in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 on the file of this District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai and pass orders.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C. Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to cancel the bail order in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 on the file of this District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

¶17

2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner is the defacto complainant in this case and he has lodged a complaint before the second respondent stating that the Respondents 3 to 5 have attacked him and caused injuries to him. Due to which a case was registered and the respondents 3 to 5 were arrested. Thereafter, they were released on bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2025 on 05.08.2025. To cancel the same the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶18

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/Respondents 3 to 5 have severely attacked the petitioner and caused grievous injuries to him. He further submits that inspite of the bail was granted to the accused/Respondents 3 to 5 they did not comply with the same and failed to appear before the Court. Hence the bail granted to them should be cancelled. Hence prays to allow this petition.

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

4. The learned counsel appeared for the first respondent would submit that only based on the complaint given by the petitioner the case has been registered and they have arrested the accused. He further submitted that now the investigation has been completed to certain extent.

¶22

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 3 to 5 submitted that that the petitioner has given a false complaint against them and they were remanded to judicial custody on 27.05.2025 and they were in prison for 73 days. He further submitted that they were no way connected to the offence and prays to dismiss this petition.

¶23

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

7. On a perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the petitioner has contended through his counsel that the injured persons is taking treatment. But the fact remains that the injured person has been under gone treatment from 26.06.2025 and discharged on 04.07.2025. Thereafter, he was admitted in the

¶25

hospital for ailment and treatment. Hence, considering the fact that the period of incarceration and nature of the offences and the injured was discharged from the

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

hospital, the Court below has granted bail to the petitioner, which needs no interference.

¶29

8. Further more on seeing the medical records of the victim it is seen that that injured has admitted in the hospital on 26.06.2025 and has undergone treatment for the injuries and thereafter discharged on 04.07.2025. However, based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant the respondent police have registered the case and the same was taken on file by the District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai and the accused were granted only an interim relief by way of bail with certain conditions.

¶30

9. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the accused are not appearing before the Court below inspite of the bail was granted to them. It is the duty of the respondent/police and the prosecution to verify whether the accused or appearing or not. It is also made clear that if the accused are not co-operating for the investigation, necessary action will be taken against them by the respondent/police and the prosecution. Even though the petitioner is involved in the case it would be suffice if the petitioner shall co-operate for the investigation and trial.

¶31

4/6

¶32

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

¶33

8. For the foregoing reasons the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1011 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 on the file of this District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai is confirmed and this this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

07.11.2025

¶35

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

¶36

¶37