CRL OP(MD). No.6424 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.10.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD). No.6424 of 2025 Pandiyaraj ... Petitioner/De-facto complainant Vs 1. Senthilkumar ...1st respondent/accused 2. The State of TamilNadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Reddiarchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.53 of 2025) ...2nd Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Paul Murugesh For R1 : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa pandian For R2 : M/s.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.483(3) of BNSS 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6424 of 2025 PRAYER :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS, to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the first respondent/accused by the learned Principal Session Judge (FAC) Dindigul in Crl.M.P.No.586 of 2025. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 1st respondent/accused in Crl.M.P.No.586 of 2025 dated 20.03.2025 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge (FAC) Dindigul. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant submitted that the 1st respondent/accused had received a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs from the petitioner/defacto complainant with false promise to hand over the land to the petitioner, and he is doing real estate business. Further, the 1st respondent/accused failed to hand over the land to the petitioner/defacto complainant and the 1st respondent had cheated the petitioner/defacto complainant and several persons. Hence, he prayed to allow this petition. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6424 of 2025 3. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. Considering the submission on both sides and perusal of the records, it is seen that the 1st respondent has not violated the conditions imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge (FAC) Dindigul. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be entertained. However, the 2nd respondent police, is directed to file a charge sheet at the earliest. 5. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J) 22.10.2025 msrm To 1. The learned Principal Sessions Judge (FAC) Dindigul. 2.The Inspector of Police, Reddiarchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.6424 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY,J msrm ORDER IN CRL OP(MD). No.6424 of 2025 22.10.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis