logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5840 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : CRL.RC.(MD). No. 1345 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. GUNASEKARAN
Parties : M. Giri Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A. Senthilkumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: D. Rajaboopathy, Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
Date of Judgment : 12-08-2026
Head Note :-
B.N.S.S - Section 438 r/w Section 442 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Crl.M.P.No.1944 of 2026 in Cr.M.P.353 of 2026.)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the materials available on record.

2. The petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Crl.M.P.No.1944 of 2026 in Cr.M.P.No.353 of 2026, whereby the anticipatory bail granted to him was cancelled.

3. The FIR has been registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2. He was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, by order dated 27.01.2026 in Cr.M.P.No.353 of 2026, subject to the condition that he should appear before the respondent police and sign daily for a period of 30 days from the date following the execution of the bond before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The order further stipulated that, in the event of breach of any of the conditions, the jurisdictional Court would be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, reported in (2005) AIR SC 5560.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition. Consequently, on the petition filed by the prosecution, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur had cancelled the anticipatory bail by order dated 08.07.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1944 of 2026 in Cr.M.P.No.353 of 2026. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

5. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, along with the other accused, armed with deadly weapons, criminally intimidated the defacto complainant and committed mischief by causing damage to his two-wheeler. On the basis of the said allegations, the above FIR came to be registered.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner had admittedly violated the bail condition by failing to appear before the respondent police and, therefore, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge rightly had cancelled the anticipatory bail.

7. It is not the case of the prosecution that, after being enlarged on anticipatory bail, the petitioner had tampered with the prosecution witnesses or threatened the defacto complainant, or involved himself in any other criminal activity. The explanation offered by the petitioner for the non-compliance of the bail condition is that his father was hospitalised and he had to take care of him. In support of the said explanation, medical records were also shown as produced before the Court.

8. A perusal of the order dated; 27.01.2026 in granting anticipatory bail shows that the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case. The petitioner is only 20 years of age, and the learned counsel appearing for him submitted that he is prepared to strictly comply with any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The antecedents of the parents of the petitioner have no relevance while considering the legality of the order cancelling the anticipatory bail. The memo filed on behalf of the petitioner is recorded. Considering the date of occurrence and the stage of the investigation, it appears that substantial progress in the investigation has already been made.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the explanation offered by the petitioner for the breach of the bail condition, and in the absence of any allegation of misuse of liberty after the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Crl.M.P.No.1944 of 2026 in Cr.M.P.No.353 of 2026 is set aside.

10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mayiladuthurai, at 10.00 a.m. on all working days until further orders. All the other conditions imposed in the order dated 27.01.2026 passed in Cr.M.P.No.353 of 2026 shall remain unaltered. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal