Thirumalvalavan v. Sulochana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR THIRUMALVALAVAN Petitioner Vs

1. Sulochana 2.Manoranjitham 3.The State Rep. by The Special Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District. (crime No.7/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed to cancel the bail order granted to the respondents 1 and 2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District dated 09.04.2025 in Crime No.7/2025 on the file of 3rd respondent.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Prabhakaran 1/5

For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R3

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to cancel the bail order granted to the respondents 1 and 2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District on 09.04.2025 in Crime No.7/2025 on the file of the third respondent.

2. The petitioner has filed this criminal original petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that the respondents 1 and 2 have committed serious offence of forgery, cheating and also falsification of records. However, the learned Magistrate, while granting bail to the respondents imposed a condition that they have to execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and one surety should be a family member. Though the respondents 1 and 2 have submitted the sureties, but they are not blood relatives/family members. Since the respondents 1 and 2 have not submitted proper sureties as ordered by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner prays to cancel the bail.

2/5

3. This Court has perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate, wherein it is stated that sureties to be furnished for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and one of the sureties must be a family member. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 submitted false surety, since one of the sureties is not a family member.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the bail was granted in Crime No.7 of 2025 on 09.04.2025 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virdhachalam, the learned Magistrate is the appropriate authority to decide whether the respondents herein have complied with the condition imposed at the time of executing the sureties. It is admitted that the learned Magistrate after applying his mind has accepted the sureties. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

4. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. 28-10-2025 mfa Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes 3/5

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District

2. The Special Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

4/5

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mfa CRL OP No. 18023 of 28-10-2025 5/5