CRL OP(MD). No. 55 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 55 of 2026 D.Deepamathi ...Petitioner Vs 1. C. Balasamundeeswaran 2. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Oomachikulam, Madurai District ...Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kishorekumar For R-1 :Mr.B.M.Raja Mohamed For R-2 : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PRAYER :- Petition filed under Sec.439(2) of Cr.P.C., and Section 483(2) of BNSS to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent /petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.5664 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.5712 of 2024 dated 16.11.2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 55 of 2026 This Petition has been filed to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent /petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.5664 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.5712 of 2024 dated 16.11.2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai. 2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in the bail order the learned Magistrate has recorded that the first respondent has sent derogatory, unpleasant, defamatory and scandalous letters to the High Court Advocates Association, Advocate General Officer and even Hon'ble Judges making distasteful allegations against the petitioner and her colleagues in the legal fraternity. Even after grant of bail the first respondent is constantly threatening the petitioner and attempting to influence witnesses and interfere with due process, therefore filed petition to cancel the bail. 4. On perusal of records, it is observed that the learned Magistrate while granting bail to the petitioner recorded that the intervenor got married 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 55 of 2026 with the petitioner in the year 2005 and after a period of 19 years the petitioner approached the Court and sought for custodial interrogation of the accused. Though the intervenor requested for custodial interrogation the investigation officer did not file any petition for interrogation. And the further the son of the petitioner is in custody of the defacto complainant and same was denied by her,therefore the question of tampering the evidence will not arise and thereby granted bail, therefore the learned Magistrate has applied his mind and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted bail. Further there is a family dispute between the parties and thereby no sufficient grounds available to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner, thereby the petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. 5.Accordingly the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 17.06.2026 aav 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 55 of 2026 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Oomachikulam, Madurai District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No. 55 of 2026 P. DHANABAL, J aav ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 55 of 2026 Date : 17.06.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis