Disposed¶31

M.Lakshana v. a.Mohamed Anwar

Madras HC7 Mar 2025CRL OP/3831/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CRL O.P. No.3831 of 2025; Sunder Mohan J.; 07.03.2025; cancellation of bail; Section 583(2) of B.N.S.S.; Cr. No.18 of 2024; All Women Police Station, Pallavaram, Kanchipuram District; Crl. M.P. No.3657 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024; Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu; accused allegedly talked to and harassed defacto complainant after bail; Government Advocate reported warning issued to accused; no further orders required; supervening circumstances; petition disposed of; liberty reserved to petitioner to reapply for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the Court held that no further orders were required in the petition, i.e., it did not pass fresh orders cancelling the bail at that stage. ¶30

M.Lakshana Vs a.Mohamed Anwar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL O.P. No.3831 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 07.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL O.P. No.3831 of 2025

¶7

M. Lakshana D/o. Muralidharan ... Petitioner / Defacto complainant

¶8

¶9

A. Mohammed Anwar S/o. Abdul Sathar

¶10

2. State rep. by:-

¶11

The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Pallavaram, Kanchipuram District. ... Respondent [Cr. No.18 of 2024]

¶12

PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 583(2)

¶13

of B.N.S.S., praying to cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent by

¶14

the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl. M.P. No.3657 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024 in the case related to Cr. No.18

¶15

of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

CRL O.P. No.3831 of 2025

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Yash Rathi.R.

¶20

For Respondent : Mr. S.Santhosh Government Advocate

¶21

[Criminal side] ORDER

¶22

This petition has been filed to cancel the bail granted by the

¶23

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl. M.P. No.3657 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024 to the 1st respondent, who is the accused in the case in Cr. No.18 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

¶24

The 1st respondent was granted bail by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu by an order dated 11.12.2024. This petition has been filed for cancellation of bail, since the 1st respondent attempted to talk to the petitioner and he had harassed her.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the 2nd respondent, on instructions, submitted that the 1st respondent has been sufficiently warned by the 2nd respondent that if he tries to talk to the petitioner again, the bail would be cancelled.

¶26

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

CRL O.P. No.3831 of 2025

¶30

petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the view that no further orders are required in this petition. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an application for cancellation of bail, if there are any supervening circumstances warranting such filing.

¶31