Marikannan v. Vaikundarajan

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23/11/2023

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM Marikannan .. Petitioner/Intervener/Defacto complainant Vs

1. Vaikundarajan

...Respondent/Petitioner/Accused No.3

2. The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Thirunelveli District.

(Crime No. 402 of 2021) .. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent No.1 / A3 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli, by its order, dated 01.07.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.3790 of 2021.

For petitioner : Mr.K. Althaf Sherif,Advocate For respondent No. 1 : Mr.M. Maharaja, Advocate For 2nd respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman Additional Public Prosecutor 1/4

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent No.1 / A3 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli, by its order, dated 01.07.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.3790 of 2021.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has violated the condition imposed by this Court and hence, he prays for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a status report and stated that the 1st respondent herein has complied with the condition made in Crl.M.P.No.3790 of 2021, dated 01.07.2021 passsed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli by due process of law and signed in the note book produced herewith as document IV A and there is no defect or no chance of any mis-use.

4. Since the respondent police has filed a status report stating that the petitioner herein has not violated the condition, that there is no ground of for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent. Further, in view of the Judgments 2/4

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1978 AIR 1961 equivalent to 1978 SCR(3) 950 in the case of State through Delhi Vs. Sanjay Gandhi and others and 1955 SCC (1) 349, JT 1995(1) 127 in the case of (Dolat Ram Vs. State of Hariyana), very cogent and supervening circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. However, once the bail granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any intervening circumstances have rendered out no longer conducive to fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession during the trial. Therefore, the grounds stated in the petition does not made the parameter laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 13/12/2023 / TRUE COPY / /01/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TRP TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAYAMKOTTAI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI.

3/4

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADRUAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10717 of 2023 Date :13/12/2023 PKP/JGB/SAR- /08.01.2024/ 4P/ 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4