CRL OP(MD). No.12664 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD) NO. 12664 of 2025 Leena Indiramery ..Petitioner/defacto- complainant Vs 1.Madhanagobal 2.Amuthavalli 3.Sivaganam 4.Mohan @ Mohansundharam .. Respondents 1 to 4 /A1 to A4 5.State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Sub Inspector Of Police, Palani Town Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.335 of 2015) .. 5th Respondent PRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483(2) of BNSS, to cancel the 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12664 of 2025 anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 to 4 herein in Cr.M.P.No.996 of 2025, dated 04.06.2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sitthan Singaravel For Respondent(s):Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)(for R5) :Mr.P.Muthuganesapandian (for R1 to R4) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The Criminal Original Petition is filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 to 4 herein in Cr.M.P.No.996 of 2025, dated 04.06.2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the defacto complainant. He further submitted that 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12664 of 2025 the respondents 1 to 4 had violated the condition imposed by this Court in the anticipatory bail petition. He further submitted that the respondents 1 to 4 intimidated the defacto complainant, for which she has produced the photograph. Hence, he seeks to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 to 4. 3.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-Police 4.On perusing the records, it is seen that petitioner has not preferred any complaint immediately before the respondent Police regarding the violation of the condition. Even the petitioner has given a complaint, there is no allegation of any harassment. It only states that “mehfhpfkhf Ngrp tPz; gpur;rid nra;jjhf”. Therefore, there is no allegation of sexual harassment as 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12664 of 2025 alleged in the cancellation petition. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in Crl.A.Nos.2381 of 2025, dated 02.05.2025, has held that the cancellation of bail cannot be considered in a mechanical manner unless there are supervening circumstances. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder; 16.The jurisprudence surrounding cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC is very clear as to that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to enjoy the concession of bail during the trial. The grounds for cancellation of bail as illustrated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar and reiterated in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra broadly lay down the grounds on which a bail can be cancelled where 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12664 of 2025 (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity. (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country. (vii) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It has also been echoed in various judgments that rejection of bail stands on a different platform as compared to cancellation of bail which is considered to be a harsh order as it interferes with the liberty of an individual, and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12664 of 2025 5.In the present case, there are no such supervening circumstances. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the cancellation of bail application. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Since the petitioners 1 and 2 are practising Doctor, they are strictly warned not to violate the conditions. 18.09.2025 vsg To 1.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. 2.The Sub Inspector Of Police, Palani Town Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12664 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY.J., vsg Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12664 of 2025 Date : 18.09.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis