Mohammed Yunus v. The State By, Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.M.P.No.866 of 2026 in Crl.OP.No.30960 of 2025 Mohammed Yunus ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, T-2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai.

2. S.Karimullah

3. Raziya ... Respondents PRAYER : This petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS/439(2) of Cr.P.C to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 2 and 3 in the above Crl.OP.No.30960 of 2025. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Jeremiah For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 : Mr.Mohammed Madhar Moidheen for R2 and R3

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 herein on the ground that they have obtained anticipatory bail by making a false averments that one of the main accused was released on bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has granted bail on the premises that the first accused in this case was released on bail and same is false averments. Hence, there is valid ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 they have not made such a statement before this Court, it was stated only by the learned Government Advocate and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that after the order passed by this Court in this Original Petition, A1 was arrested and he was in judicial custody and later he was released on bail and hence, prays for rejecting the petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the case is under investigation and so far no final report has been filed.

5. I have gone through the records and the statement made by both sides, revealed that both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Government Advocate stated that before this Court the first accused in this case was arrested and released on bail, Now, it is stated that it is a false averment. Though suppressing the fact or availing bail on factual errors, is a valid ground to cancel the bail petition, perusal of the reasons stated for granting bail shows that this Court has also already taken note of the age of the petitioner as one of the criteria. Further, it is a case of dowry death and the RDO enquiry is also concluded as dowry death. Since the first accused is the main accused in this case was arrested and released on bail . Taking note of the age of the petitioner herein and taking note of the fact that they have complied the conditions imposed by this Court regarding the appearance before the police, I am of the view that the cancellation of bail at this point of time is not necessary.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 27.01.2026 Vv

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur

2. The Inspector of Police, T-2, Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.M.P.No.866 of 2026 in Crl.OP.No.30960 of 2025 27.01.2026