Mohamed Arif v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mohamed Arif S/o M.K.Ismail, 104, Masha Allah House, Ponvizha Nagar, South Ukkam, Coimbatore.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Selvarpuram Police Station.

Crime No.327 of 2025

2. Amaradeepa Jeevanandam, W/o Keri in Savio Nigil, No.79, DB Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore.

..Respondent(s) Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS 2023, praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent in Clr.OP.No.9611 of 2026 dated 20.04.2026 in Crime No.327 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 No appearance for R2 __________Page 1 of 4

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent by this Court in Clr.OP.No.9611 of 2026 dated 20.04.2026.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent herein was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31502 of 2025 dated 19.11.2025. However, the said bail was cancelled by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P.No.476 of 2026 dated 03.02.2026. It is his contention that the second respondent, by suppressing the factum of cancellation of the earlier anticipatory bail, represented before this Court as though the earlier anticipatory bail had merely lapsed on account of non-compliance with the conditions imposed therein.

3. It is further contended that, had the second respondent disclosed the factum of cancellation of the earlier anticipatory bail, this Court would not have granted anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.9611 of 2026 dated 20.04.2026.

4. Though, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no specific submission before this Court regarding the cancellation of __________Page 2 of 4

the earlier anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate, the point that arises for consideration is whether such omission amounts to suppression of a material fact warranting cancellation of the subsequent anticipatory bail.

5. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the reasons assigned in the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.9611 of 2026 dated 20.04.2026 disclose the earlier anticipatory bail order and the fact that the same had lapsed on account of noncompliance. Therefore, though there is some deviation in the manner in which the earlier proceedings were projected before this Court, the same cannot be construed as a material suppression of facts so as to warrant cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent. Accordingly, this Court is unable to find any convincing reason to interfere with the liberty already granted to the second respondent.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. 24-06-2026 cda __________Page 3 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, Selvarpuram Police Station.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

24-06-2026 __________Page 4 of 4