Visalakshi v. Sethu Ragamaliga

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025 Visalakshi ..Petitioner/Defacto complainant Vs 1.Sethuragamaliga 2.Kalyanakumaraswamy ...1st & 2nd Respondents/ A1 & A2 3.The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Junction Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

(Crime No.323 of 2025) ...3rd Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner:Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu for Mr.P.Jeyasankar Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi(for R3) Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj (for R1 & R2) 1/6

PRAYER :- This Criminal Miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 483(3) of BNS r/w 439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the anticipatory bail order in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025, dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court.

ORDER

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025, dated 11.09.2025.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 have stolen the original documents dated 11.03.1996 and 18.06.2025, and other valuable documents and jewels from the petitioner. After granting anticipatory bail by this Court, the third respondent police has not recovered any documents from the respondents 1 and 2. Hence, he 2/6

seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the third respondent Police would submit that already the police conducted search in the house of the respondents 1 and 2 and obtained documents and apart from that, there is no document available in their house. He would further submit that all the seized documents were remanded to the custody of the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.In this case, there was a family dispute regarding the property and the petitioner is the none other than the mother of the first 3/6

respondent and mother-in-law of the second respondent and already the respondent Police conducted search and recovered some documents even assuming any deficiency in conducting search that alone is not a ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2. Hence, this Court does not find any grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail already granted to the respondents 1 and 2.

6. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

(P D B J) 22.04.2026 vsg 4/6

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Junction Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No. 5532 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.15010 of 2025 Date : 22.04.2026 6/6