IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

H.Divya

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep By, The Inspector of

Police

W-9, All Women Police Station,

Villivakkam, Chennai.

2.V.Hari Baskar

Respondent(s)

PRAYER This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, seeking to Cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent order granted on 23.07.2025 in Crl.MP.No.6547 of 2025 passed by the Honourable Principal Sessions Judge,

Chennai.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Gowthaman

For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Baskaran

Government Advocate, Crl.Side

FOR R1

M/s.M.Vigneshwaran, for R2

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the 2^nd respondent herein. The allegation in this case is that the 2^nd respondent herein is the husband and he involved in harassing his wife and also misappropriated the jewels belongs to the defacto complainant, hence the complaint was lodged, a case was registered after elaborate enquiry.

2. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai has granted anticipatory bail to the 2^nd respondent vide order dated 23.07.2025 in Crl MP No.6547 of 2025. After granting anticipatory bail, it seems during the enquiry before the police there was yet another occurrence in which it is alleged that the 2^nd respondent and his family members have attacked the defacto complainant in this case. Hence, separate criminal case was also registered in Crime No.326 of 2025 under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act. On the strength of the registration of FIR and also stating that the gold jewels have not been returned back to the defacto complainant, the petitioner herein pleaded for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was an undertaking given by the 2^nd respondent that he will hand over the jewels. However, he has failed to comply the same. Similarly, the 2^nd respondent has also involved in subsequent offence attacking the defacto complainant, due to the impact, the defacto complainant sustained severe injuries and she was also admitted in the hospital. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the photographs of the victim to show that she has suffered injuries.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that there was no undertaking given by the 2^nd respondent for return back of jewels. He further relied on the Whats App chats to show that already victim/defacto complainant had taken away all jewels along with her. He further submitted that there was also a counter case registered against the defacto complainant herein for the occurrence taken place during the enquiry at the police station. Hence, there is no valid ground for cancellation of the bail and prays to dismiss the petition.

5. I have also gone through the orders passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl MP No.6547 of 2025 and the learned Judge has specifically recorded that whether the jewels were handed over or not to the defacto complainant will be revealed only after thorough investigation.

However, the learned Judge has not imposed any condition to return back the jewels. Hence, the first contention raised by the petitioner herein that no jewels were handed over do not have any merits.

6. With regard to the second ground that the 2^nd respondent has committed yet another offence against the defacto complainant, for the second occurrence, there is also a counter case registered against the defacto complainant in Crime No.327 of 2025 on the file of very same police station. The facts of both cases reveals that during the enquiry conducted before the police in this case, both parties have attacked each other and it is also alleged that both sides have also suffered injuries and both parties have relied on the Accident Register recorded by the hospital.

7. In view of the same, it is appropriate to state that for the very same occurrence, case and counter case has been registered a