Dismissed¶28

K.Kesavan v. Balan

Madras HC12 Jun 2026CRL OP/33747/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail - Section 483(3) r/w 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Madras High Court - allegation that accused influenced de facto complainant unsubstantiated - no violation of bail conditions shown - refusal to interfere with bail order in absence of cogent material - Crime No.370 of 2025, Kandhikkuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri - Crl.O.P.No.33747 of 2025 dismissed (order dated 12.06.2026).

What did the court decide?

There are no materials available on record to substantiate the allegation that the accused had influenced the de facto complainant. ¶23

K.Kesavan Vs Balan — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.33747 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.33747 of 2025

¶7

K.Kesavan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Balan

¶10

Savithri

¶11

The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Kandhikkuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.370 of 2025)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483(3) r/w 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the first and second respondents in Crl.M.P.No.3028 of 2025, dated 12.11.2025, by the Principal Sessions Judge at Krishnagiri, in Crime No.370 of 2025.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Pritheevraj

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) (for R3) Mr.P.M.Jayachandran (for R1 & R2)

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.33747 of 2025

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the first and second respondents in Crl.M.P.No.3028 of 2025, dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

¶22

materials available on record.

¶23

The only allegation raised by the petitioner for cancellation of bail is that the accused had influenced the de facto complainant. However, there are no materials available on record to substantiate the said allegation.

¶24

From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is unable to find any material to indicate that there has been a violation of the conditions imposed in the bail order. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that, at this length of time, interference with the order granting anticipatory bail would be a serious matter. In the absence of any cogent material warranting such interference, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.33747 of 2025

¶28

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶29

12.06.2026

¶30

¶31