Scope Of Quashment Petition Distinct From Bail Cancellation For Violation Of Conditions: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has observed that the scope of a petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings is entirely distinct from that of a petition seeking cancellation of bail on the ground of violation of bail conditions, and that an interim stay granted in a quashment petition cannot come in the way of proceedings relating to cancellation of bail.
Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira made the observation while hearing a Criminal Original Petition filed by Alex Pandian seeking quashment of proceedings in P.R.C.No.147 of 2025 pending before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
The petitioner had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in August 2025, subject to a specific condition that he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. The second respondent/de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner violated the said condition by travelling to Canada, following which a petition seeking cancellation of bail was filed and is pending before another coordinate Bench dealing with bail matters.
It was submitted that when the bail cancellation petition came up for hearing on 10 December 2025, the Bench dealing with bail matters, taking note of the interim stay granted in the quashment proceedings, directed the Magistrate to keep the surety proceedings in abeyance.
Accepting the submission of counsel for the de facto complainant that the scope of the two proceedings is entirely different, the Court observed that the pendency of the quashment petition and the interim stay granted therein ought not to stall consideration of the bail cancellation petition.
Accordingly, the Court requested the Bench dealing with bail matters to proceed with the petition seeking cancellation of bail without reference to the interim order passed and subsequently extended in the quashment proceedings. The matter was posted for further hearing after two weeks.
Case Title: Alex Pandian v. State & Anr.
Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.26260 of 2025
Senior Counsel R. Shanmugasundaram appeared for the petitioner, instructed by Om Sai Ram. Government Advocate (Criminal Side) S. Santhosh appeared for the State.
A. Ashwin Kumar from AMS Legal appeared for the second respondent/de facto complainant.