Meenal vs S. Ravishankar and Another

P. Devadass, J.—Petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to her husband. Petitioner joined in wedlock with Ravi Shankar/accused. They had no issues, but have issues. Already, they are fighting in the Family Court, Chennai, in H.M.O.P. No. 1866 of 2012, which has been filed by Ravi Shankar for their reunion.

On 9.5.2012, in Crl. O.P. No. 11043 of 2012, this Court had granted him anticipatory bail. Now, the petitioner wants cancellation of it. Her main grievance is that her husband having obtained anticipatory bail is not returning her shridhana articles.

Granting of bail, anticipatory bail, as the case may be and cancellation of them are based on different principles. Unless sufficient grounds are established, Courts will not cancel the bail orders.

So far as cancellation of bail, anticipatory bail is concerned, there are certain settled principles. If the accused, who has been given liberty by passing the bail order, whether regular bail or anticipatory bail, interferes with investigation, overawe the witnesses, indulges in similar criminal activities there may be a case for cancelling the bail order. A bail or anticipatory bail is in the nature of liberty order. That cannot be lightly interfered with. It cannot be cancelled by the mere asking.

A close reading of the petition shows that the petitioner wants return of her articles from her husband. Already H.M.O.P. No. 1866 of 2012 is pending between them. There is ample provision in the Matrimonial Law to seek return of her articles. That cannot be done in a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail. No valid ground has been made out to cancel the anticipatory bail. In the result, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed.