Dismissed¶29

Shanthi v. Bharath Kumar

Anticipatory bail cancellation – S.483(3) BNSS, 2023

Madras HC23 Mar 2026CRL MP/3309/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, C.Kumarappan J., 23.03.2026 - Crl.M.P.No.3309 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.23100 of 2025 (Shanthi v. Bharath Kumar & Inspector of Police, Muthapudupet PS, Thiruvallur; Crime No.68 of 2025). Petition under Section 483(3) BNSS 2023 to cancel anticipatory bail dismissed; no concrete evidence of misuse of liberty or threat; charge sheet filed including Section 74 BNS; bail non-interference principle applied.

What did the court decide?

Subsequent intervention of the 1st respondent was not established; liberty granted by this Court cannot be interfered with unless there is concrete evidence. ¶23

Shanthi Vs Bharath Kumar — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.3309 of 2026

¶2

in Crl..O.P.No.23100 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.3309 of 2026

¶7

¶8

Crl.O.P.No.23100 of 2025

¶9

Shanthi ... Petitioner/defacto complainant Vs.

¶10

Bharath Kumar

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Muthapudupet Police Station, Thiruvallur District. Crime No.68 of 2025

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 1^st respondent herein by order dated 20.08.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.23100 of 2025.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Angamuthu

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 1^st respondent herein by order dated 20.08.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.23100 of 2025.

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.M.P.No.3309 of 2026 in Crl..O.P.No.23100 of 2025

¶21

Now, the only allegation raised by the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent has misused the liberty. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, after receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, they have enquired and subsequently since there was no material to proceed further, they have closed the issue.

¶22

Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and upon the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that subsequent intervention of the 1^st respondent has not been established. It is well settled principle of law that

¶23

the liberty of the 1^st respondent granted by this Court cannot be interfered unless there is a concrete evidence.

¶24

In the case on hand, there is no material to show that the 1^st respondent has threatened the petitioner and at this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the charge sheet has been filed, wherein Section 74 of BNS also included. Hence, this Court finds no ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 1^st respondent.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.M.P.No.3309 of 2026

¶28

in Crl..O.P.No.23100 of 2025

¶29