Dismissed¶34

Visalakshi v. Sethu Ragamaliga

Madras HC22 Apr 2026CRL MP(MD)/5532/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail — S.483(3) BNS r/w 439(2) Cr.P.C. — non-recovery of stolen documents (dated 11.03.1996 and 18.06.2025) and jewels — deficiency in police search alone not a ground to cancel anticipatory bail — family/property dispute, petitioner mother of A1 and mother-in-law of A2 — seized documents remanded to Judicial Magistrate — Crime No.323 of 2025, Junction Police Station, Tirunelveli City — Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 — CRL MP(MD).No.5532 of 2026 — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court — P. Dhanabal, J. — petition dismissed on 22.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 and 2 was refused and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed. ¶34

Visalakshi Vs Sethu Ragamaliga — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 and 2 was refused and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 and 2 (A1 and A2) in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025 should be cancelled, as sought by the defacto complainant on the ground that the documents and jewels allegedly stolen by them had not been recovered by the police.

¶20

Court's answer

Even assuming any deficiency in the conduct of the police search, that alone is not a ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 and 2; the court noted the matter arose out of a family/property dispute, the petitioner being the mother of the first respondent and mother-in-law of the second respondent, and that the police had already searched and recovered some documents.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail already granted to respondents 1 and 2.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 483(3) of BNS r/w 439(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the defacto complainant (mother of A1 and mother-in-law of A2) seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 and 2 (A1 and A2) in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025, dated 11.09.2025, arising out of Crime No.323 of 2025 of Junction Police Station, Tirunelveli City, on the ground that the original documents dated 11.03.1996 and 18.06.2025, other valuable documents and jewels allegedly stolen by them had not been recovered. Held (P. Dhanabal, J.), dismissing the petition: the police had already searched the house of respondents 1 and 2, obtained/recovered some documents, and the seized documents stood remanded to the custody of the learned Judicial Magistrate; even assuming any deficiency in conducting the search, that alone is not a ground to cancel the anticipatory bail. No grounds were found to cancel the anticipatory bail already granted. Decision date: 22.04.2026.

¶1

CRL MP(MD). No. 5532 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 22.04.2026

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

Visalakshi

¶7

..Petitioner/Defacto complainant

¶8

¶9

1.Sethuragamaliga 2.Kalyanakumaraswamy

¶10

...1^st & 2^nd Respondents/ A1 & A2

¶11

3.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Junction Police Station, Tirunelveli City. (Crime No.323 of 2025) ...3^rd Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner:Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu for Mr.P.Jeyasankar Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi(for R3) Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

CRL MP(MD). No. 5532 of 2026

¶18

PRAYER :- This Criminal Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 483(3) of BNS r/w 439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the anticipatory bail order in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025, dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025, dated 11.09.2025.

¶21

2.The learned counsel appearing for the

¶22

petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 have stolen the original documents dated 11.03.1996 and 18.06.2025, and other valuable documents and jewels from the petitioner. After

¶23

granting anticipatory bail by this Court, the third respondent police has not recovered any documents from the respondents 1 and 2. Hence, he 2/6

¶24

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

¶25

CRL MP(MD). No. 5532 of 2026

¶26

seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2.

¶27

appearing for the third respondent Police would submit that already the police conducted search in the house of the respondents 1 and 2 and obtained documents and apart from that, there is no document available in their house. He would further submit that all the seized documents were remanded to the custody of the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate.

¶28

either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶29

5.In this case, there was a family dispute regarding the property and the petitioner is the none other than the mother of the first

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

CRL MP(MD). No. 5532 of 2026

¶33

respondent and mother-in-law of the second respondent and already the respondent Police conducted search and recovered some documents even assuming any deficiency in conducting search that alone is not a ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2. Hence, this Court does not find any grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail already granted to the respondents 1 and 2.

¶34