Dismissed¶25

Mythili v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Nov 2025CRL OP/19406/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail; Section 483(3) BNSS; suppression of facts in bail application; cheating; defacto complainant petition; Crime No.127 of 2025 Town police station Erode; Crl.M.P.No.473 of 2025 Principal District and Sessions Judge Erode dated 19.03.2025; condition to appear before police relaxed 12.06.2025; amounts in issue Rs.39 lakhs / Rs.35 lakhs / Rs.33,85,000 / Rs.33 lakhs / Rs.10 lakhs / Rs.49 lakhs; real estate project; petition dismissed, bail not cancelled; Madras High Court; K. Rajasekar J.; 19-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition to cancel the anticipatory bail of the 2nd respondent was dismissed and the bail was not cancelled. ¶25

Mythili Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition to cancel the anticipatory bail of the 2nd respondent was dismissed and the bail was not cancelled.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent should be cancelled on the ground that facts relating to the amount cheated were suppressed when obtaining bail. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

On a combined reading of the FIR and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the defacto complainant was heard during the bail proceedings and projected only Rs.33 lakhs as cheated, not Rs.49 lakhs; accordingly there was no suppression of fact.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

There is no suppression of fact; the Criminal Original Petition has no merits and is dismissed.

¶25

Key takeaways

The 2nd respondent regularly appeared before the respondent police and complied with the bail conditions, which were subsequently relaxed; the non-compliance ground therefore does not survive (accepted by the Court in dismissing the petition).ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Rajasekar J., 19-11-2025), CRL OP No. 19406 of 2025: The defacto complainant's petition under Section 483(3) of BNSS to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent (S. Ramesh) in Crl.M.P.No.473 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode) in Crime No.127 of 2025 was dismissed. Grounds raised: (i) suppression that, besides the amount shown in the FIR, a further Rs.10 lakhs was paid for a real estate project; and (ii) non-appearance before the police. The Court, on a combined reading of the FIR and the Sessions Judge's bail order, found the FIR records Rs.35 lakhs collected by false promise (2022-2025) plus a separate Rs.10 lakhs for a real estate project, while the bail order recorded Rs.33,85,000 collected (partly repaid and disputed); the complainant, who was heard at the bail stage, had claimed only Rs.33 lakhs and never projected Rs.49 lakhs as cheated - hence no suppression of fact. The Government Advocate reported that the 2nd respondent regularly appeared before the police, complied with conditions, and the appearance condition was totally relaxed by order dated 12.06.2025. Anticipatory bail not cancelled.

¶1

CRL OP No. 19406 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 19406 of 2025

Mythili

Petitioner(s)

The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Town police station, Erode.

¶11

2.S.Ramesh

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER This petition is filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, seeking to cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to the 2nd respondent/accused in Crl.M.P.No.473 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 on the file of the honourable Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode in Crime No.127 of 2025.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Thirumalai

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R1 M/s.A.Kowsalya, for R2

¶16

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

¶17

CRL OP No. 19406 of 2025

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition has been filed, seeking cancellation of bail by the defacto complainant on the ground that there is a suppression of fact relating to the amount cheated in this case. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the condition that he shall appear before the respondent police. Hence, this petition has been filed.

¶20

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the FIR though it is stated that Rs.39 laksh has been cheated, additional Rs.10 lakhs has also been paid for real estate project and this Rs.10 lakhs has been suppressed by the 2^nd respondent and hence bail was obtained by suppression of fact and the same is a valid ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2^nd respondent.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the 2^nd respondent was regularly complying with the condition by appearing before the respondent police and later, vide order dated 12.06.2025, the condition to appear before the respondent police was totally relaxed. He further submitted that there is no suppression of fact and the 2^nd respondent has also appeared during the bail hearing and he was aware about the submissions made before the Court and the Court has also gone into merits of the case and granted the bail and hence, there is no suppression of fact.

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP No. 19406 of 2025

¶24

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police

¶25

reported that the 2^nd respondent has regularly appeared before the respondent police and complied the conditions and subsequently the conditions was relaxed. He further submitted that the investigation in this case is pending. 5.I have gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and also the FIR. In the FIR, it is revealed that from the year 2022 to 2025 the 2^nd respondent herein has collected Rs.35/- lakhs by making false promise and apart from that, separately Rs.10 lakhs was also received from the defacto complainant for the purpose of doing real estate project. In the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, it is stated that the 2^nd respondent has induced the defacto complainant and collected a sum of Rs.33,85,000/- and some of the amount has been repaid and the same was also disputed. By a combined reading of the FIR and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge would reveal that the defacto complainant is also heard and they have also submitted that only Rs.33 lakhs have been cheated and they have not projected the case as if Rs.49 lakhs have been cheated. Hence I am of the view that there is no suppression of fact and this petition is not having any merits and hence this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶26

19-11-2025

¶27

gbi

¶28

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

¶29

CRL OP No. 19406 of 2025

¶30

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

¶31

CRL OP No. 19406 of 2025