##PAGE1##

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

DATED : 18.08.2026 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR CRL OP(MD). No.17574 of 2026 The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, S.S.Kottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.

Crime No.25/2025 ... Petitioner/Respondent/Complainant Vs Nagamuneeswaran ... Respondent/Petitioner/Accused No.1 For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)

PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL Under Sec.439(2) of Cr.P.C PRAYER :-

C-44C. For Cancellation of Bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2025, dated

13.05.2025, in connection with Crime No.25 of 2025 on the file of the petitioner police station.

ORDER:

The Criminal Original Petitions has been filed under Section 439(2)

Cr.P.C., seeking orders to cancel the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2025 and Cr.M.P.No.1752 of 2021, dated 13.05.2025, in connection with Crime No.

25 of 2025 on the file of the petitioner police station.

2. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner was granted bail for the offence under Section 309(5) BNS by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari and that subsequently he has committed the offence of robbery and hence, the bail granted to the petitioner may be cancelled.

3. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judicial Magistrate has granted bail subject to certain conditions and that one of the specific conditions imposed was that the respondent/accused shall not involve himself in any criminal activities. It is the specific case of the prosecution that subsequent to his enlargement on bail, the respondent/accused has involved himself in another criminal case for similar offence and thereby violated the condition subject to which bail was granted.

4. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side), the subsequent involvement of the respondent/accused in another criminal case, if shown, is certainly a relevant circumstance to be considered, while deciding whether the consession of bail has been misused and whether the bail is liable to be cancelled. But at the same time, mere registration of subsequent criminal case cannot by itself result in automatic cancellation of bail. Cancellation of bail already granted has serious consequences affecting the liberty of the accused. The Court concerned is required to consider the proximity of the alleged occurrence to his release on bail and other attending circumstances before arriving at a conclusion as to whether there has been such violation of the bail condition or misuse of liberty as it would warrant cancellation of bail.

5. In the present case admittedly, the bail was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the above condition was also imposed by the said Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate, while granting bail, as per Section 480(5) of BNSS, is competent to consider whether the subsequent conduct of the respondent/accused constitutes the violation of the condition imposed while granting bail. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner/State to approach the Court which granted bail in the first instance.

6. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the subsequent criminal case, or on the question as to whether the respondent/accused has actually violated the conditions of bail, liberty is granted to the petitioner/State to file appropriate petition for cancellation of bail before the the learned Judicial Magistrate, who granted bail. In the event of such petition being filed, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the respondent/accused and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.

7. With the above liberty and observations, the Criminal Original Petiton stands disp