An order granting bail will not be cancelled on the basis of alleged suppression of facts if the petitioner fails to produce material evidence to prove that the relevant facts were incorrectly presented to the court at the time of granting bail.

PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD).No.2896 of 2026 :-

To cancel the Bail order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sathur, Virudhunagar District in Crl.M.P.No.124 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026, granted to the 1st Accused/2nd Respondent in connection with the Crime no.42 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police.

Prayer in Crl.O.P(MD).No.2977 of 2026

To Set aside the order passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Crl.M.P.No. 245 of 2026, dated 23.01.2026 and subsequently Cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to the 2nd Accused/2nd Respondent in connection with the Crime no.42 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police.

COMMON ORDER

1. Crl.O.P(MD).No.2896 of 2026 has been filed to cancel the bail order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sathur, Virudhunagar District in Crl.M.P.No.124 of 2026 dated 27.01.2026, granted to the 1st Accused/2nd Respondent in connection with the Crime no.42 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. Crl.O.P(MD).No.2977 of 2026 has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2026, dated 23.01.2026 and subsequently Cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to the 2nd Accused/2nd Respondent in connection with the Crime no.42 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent police.

3. According to the petitioner, he is one of the victims and an injured witness in this case. Based on the complaint lodged by the third respondent/defacto complainant, a case in Crime No. 42 of 2026 was registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 115(2) and 351(2) of the BNS and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act. The second respondent in both cases have attacked the defacto complainant with a wooden log and hands. When they were returning to their home, the petitioner questioned them about the incident that had occurred at the house of the defacto complainant. At that time, the accused persons attacked the petitioner with an aruval on his hip, pushed him to the ground and caused severe injuries to him. Thereafter, he was admitted to the Government Hospital, Sattur. The first respondent police obtained a statement from the third respondent/defacto complainant and registered an FIR. Subsequently, the accused persons approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P. Nos.124 and 245 of 2026 and the same was granted on the ground that the third respondent/defacto complainant had sustained only simple injuries and had been discharged from the hospital.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons, only the defacto complainant had been discharged from the hospital, whereas the petitioner was still undergoing treatment. He was discharged only on 23.01.2026, after receiving treatment in the hospital for more than seven days. It was further submitted that the petitioner had incurred medical expenses for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for his treatment. According to the learned counsel, these facts were not brought to the notice of the Court while granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent in both petitions is liable to be cancelled.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant/third respondent, a case in Crime No. 42 of 2026 was registered against the second respondent and the other accused. Thereafter, the accused persons approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail. The first respondent police strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to them. Howeve