Dhanapackiyam v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vaiyampatty

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 15/04/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Dhanapackiyam ... Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District, Crime No.663/2025.

2. Sowndhar Rajan ... Respondents PRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition is filed to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent / sole accused in Cr.MP.No.934 of 2026 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Trichy dated 27.02.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan For R1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.M.Suresh 1/5

ORDER

This petition for cancellation of bail has been filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant, to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent / sole accused in Cr.MP.No.934 of 2026 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichy dated 27.02.2026. The second respondent has underwent judicial custody from 17.12.2025 based on the complaint given by the petitioner. 2.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is stated on the side of petitioner that the second respondent/accused, who is a Drunkard has been enlarged on bail in Cr.M.P No. 934 of 2026, dated 27.02.2026, by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichy, without considering the gravity of the offence. He has been enlarged on bail only considering his period of incarceration undergone. The accused would threaten the witnesses by his influence and would cause hamper to the investigation and he would escape from the clutches of law. Hence, prays to cancel the bail granted to the accused/second respondent. 2/5

3.On the side of prosecution/first respondent it is stated that after grant of bail, the second respondent has duly complied with the condition imposed by the Court below.

4. On the side of the accused/second respondent, it is contended that a false case has been foisted against him and that he is not involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution. He was remanded to judicial custody on 17.12.2025 and was granted bail on 27.02.2026 by the learned Sessions Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration. The second respondent has duly complied with the conditions imposed by the Court below. There are no grounds to cancel the bail granted to the second respondent. Hence, it is prayed that this petition be dismissed. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by the parties, mere apprehension of influencing the witnesses by threat is not a ground to cancel the bail. To substantiate such apprehension, no complaint has been subsequently filed either by the petitioner or by the witnesses. 3/5

Moreover, the second respondent has complied with the condition imposed by the Court below without any violation. Hence, this Court finds no ground to cancel the bail granted to the second respondent and there is no irregularity or violation in the order passed by the Court below.

6.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

15.04.2026 PNM TO

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichy

2. The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatty Police Station, Trichy District, 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 4/5

P. DHANABAL,J PNM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5506 of 2026 Date : 15/04/2026 5/5