Vevizhi Vs State of Tamilnadu, Inspector of Police

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS Act, to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024 in Crime No.187/2024 by the learned Principal District Judge cum Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Guduvancherry Police Station.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

Crl.OP No.31395 of 2024

¶17

Mr.E.Abdul Rahiman

¶18

for R2 and R3

¶19

For Intervenor: Mr.Sathish Cenduran

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

A Criminal Original Petition has been filed to cancel the order

¶22

passed in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2024 by the learned Principal District Judge cum Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, dated 29.05.2024, in Crime No.187 of 2024 granting anticipatory bail to the second and third respondents.

¶23

The petitioner seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted

¶24

to the second and third respondents herein in Crl.M.P.No.1411 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024 on the ground that the order was passed by noting that

¶25

the properties stolen were recovered but in fact, no property was recovered.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner/ de-facto complainant

¶27

submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had granted anticipatory bail also taking into consideration the fact that the jewels said to have been taken from the de-facto complainant have been recovered and since it is factually incorrect, the impugned order granting anticipatory bail is liable

¶28

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

¶29

2/6

¶30

Crl.OP No.31395 of 2024

¶31

to be set aside.

¶32

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first

¶33

respondent, on instruction, submitted that only two cellphones were recovered and the jewels were not recovered; and that the statements in the impugned order may not be factually correct.

¶34

Learned counsel for the second and third respondents, however, contended that the anticipatory bail was not only granted on that ground but also taking into account other factors with regard to the relationship between the second respondent's husband and the de-facto complainant; that the alleged occurrence took place on 04.04.2024; and that the FIR was lodged only on 15.05.2024.

¶35

On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that though the learned Sessions Judge had observed that the stolen articles were recovered, the learned Sessions Judge had also considered the other factors, namely the relationship between the parties and the delay in lodging the complaint, while granting anticipatory bail. This Court is of the view that, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned

¶36

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

¶37

3/6

¶38

Crl.OP No.31395 of 2024

¶39

order, especially since the final report has now been filed by the respondent.

¶40