AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused/A2, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.10707 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025.
The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically relied upon paragraph No. 17 of the typed set of papers, which reads as follows:
“17.I humbly submit that even as per the order made in Crl.O.P.No.10707/2025 dated 06.11.2025, the accused did not appear before the police daily until further orders and now he got absconded. This cancellation petition ought to have been filed by the police and since they had not taken action, the petitioner is filing this petition to cancel the anticipatory bail.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in view of the aforementioned non-compliance, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail, as the respondent police have failed to take any action against the accused.
On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the second respondent police submits that the allegations made in the petition are incorrect. He drew the attention of this Court to the subsequent order dated 07.04.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3155 of 2026 in Crl.MP.No.1652 of 2026 in Crl.MP.No.26 of 2026 in Crl.M.P.No.10707 of 2025, wherein it has been recorded that the accused had been regularly appearing before the respondent police and complying with the conditions imposed upon him. Considering such regular compliance, the learned Sessions Court had relaxed the condition by order dated 07.04.2026.
For a better appreciation of the facts, the relevant portion of the order dated 07.04.2026 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 3155 of 2026, specifically paragraph Nos. 2 to 4, is extracted hereunder:-
“2.The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.MP.No.10707 of 2025, dated 06.11.2025 for the offence under Section 420 and 506(ii) of IPC on condition to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The above condition was modified and the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent police once in a Month, i.e., First working day of English Calendar Month at 10.00 a.m. until further orders.
3.Learned CPP submitted that the petitioner has complied the condition for 2 times.
4.Considering the nature of case and the number of days complied, this court is inclined to modify the conditions as follows:
“The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police as and when required by the Investigating Officer.”
It is therefore submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the second respondent police that the averments made by the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail are factually incorrect and that the present petition is not maintainable.
The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has also submitted that the investigation in the case has already been completed and the final charge sheet has also been filed before the competent Court.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that the averments made in the petition seeking cancellation of bail are found to be incorrect, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.