V.Ramesh v. S.Sathishkumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.14492 of 2025 V.Ramesh ... Petitioner/defacto complainant Vs.

1. S.Sathishkumar

2. The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District.

Crime No.136 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 1st respondent in Crl.O.P.No.14492 of 2025 by an order dated 08.05.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mathava Selvam for Mr.K.Suresh For R2 : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 1st respondent herein by order dated 08.05.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.14492 of 2025. 1/4

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the bail was granted to the 1st respondent on the sole ground that the injured has been discharged on the date of grant of anticipatory bail. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner today submits that the injured has been discharged only on 25.04.2025.

3. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that representation was made before this Court that the injured has been discharged, however he again readmitted before the hospital and therefore, there is no misrepresentation before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that, now, investigation completed and charge sheet also been taken on file C.C.No.195 of 2025.

5. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that there was was misrepresentation before this Court in respect of the status of the injured. But it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that on the date of representation before this Court, 2/4

injured was discharged, but however the fact remains that, whether such representation has any impact upon the bail granted to the petitioner. Admittedly, here such representation was not made by the petitioner, but by the learned Government Advocate. Now, the learned Government Advocate produced the discharge summary, where there is a reference that the injured has been discharged on 30.04.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the submission of the petitioner cannot be a supervening circumstances to cancel the valuable right of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. Apart from that, investigation completed, final report filed and the same was taken on file. In such view of the above circumstances, this Court finds no ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. 08.04.2026 sma 3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Sma To

1. The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District.

2. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court.

in Crl.O.P.No.14492 of 2025 08.04.2026 4/4