Supreme Court Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Granted to Son and Daughter-in-Law Who Allegedly Cheated 75-Year-Old Mother

A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Madras High Court's anticipatory bail order, finding the third bail petition in three months an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court has set aside an anticipatory bail order granted by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, to a son and daughter-in-law accused of cheating a 75-year-old mother out of land proceeds worth crores of rupees. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran found that the High Court had granted relief on the accused's third anticipatory bail petition in three months without acknowledging that another Bench had denied bail just a month earlier, and without examining whether any change in circumstances justified a different outcome. The Court held that filing successive bail petitions in this manner reduced the legal process to “a mere gamble” and amounted to an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed on 15 May 2026.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

Vasantha, the appellant, is a septuagenarian whose husband, Vanuvamalai, had passed away. She has two sons and three daughters. According to her complaint, her son Karthikeyan Manikandan (accused No. 1) and his wife Vasupradha (accused No. 2) arranged a family settlement on 22 May 2019 under which all family properties were transferred to Vasantha's name. The accused then got her to sell land admeasuring 11.33 acres for developing a layout. She was told the land was sold at ₹85,00,000 per acre, and ₹9,65,34,775 was credited to a bank account opened in her name. That amount was also withdrawn by the accused.

In December 2023, Vasantha received a notice from the Income Tax department demanding a large tax payment. When she and other family members made enquiries, they were told the land had actually been sold at ₹2.75 crore per acre and that approximately ₹22 crore had been paid separately to the accused, beyond what was deposited in her account. She further alleged that the accused had transferred her house to Karthikeyan Manikandan's name on a promise to maintain her, but then drove her out, leaving her homeless.

On 3 May 2025, Vasantha registered FIR No. 10 at Trichy City Police Station under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The complaint was signed by Vasantha, two of her daughters, and her second son.

Three Bail Petitions in Three Months

The accused filed anticipatory bail petitions before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli, in Criminal M.P. Nos. 2797 and 2798 of 2025. Those petitions were dismissed on 16 July 2025. The accused then moved the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal OP (MD) Nos. 12807 and 10169 of 2025. By order dated 4 August 2025, the High Court denied relief, noting the seriousness of the allegations and observing that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and that custodial interrogation was necessary.

Within a month, the accused filed a fresh anticipatory bail petition, Criminal OP (MD) No. 15133 of 2025, before the same High Court. Vasantha filed an intervention application opposing the prayer. By order dated 15 September 2025, a learned Judge of the High Court granted anticipatory bail. The order made no mention of the dismissal of the earlier bail application by another Bench just a month before, and did not address whether any change in circumstances had occurred.

Having secured anticipatory bail, the accused filed Criminal OP (MD) No. 17956 of 2025 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash FIR No. 10 of 2025. In October 2025, a learned Judge of the High Court granted an interim stay of all further proceedings by order dated 25 October 2025. The investigation was, in effect, brought to a halt.

Vasantha approached the Supreme Court against the anticipatory bail order of 15 September 2025. Notice was ordered on 7 November 2025. Counter affidavits were filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and both accused.

What the State and the Accused Said

The State of Tamil Nadu, in its counter affidavit, stated that the investigation was continuing and that the allegations disclosed serious accusations involving substantial financial transactions. The State pointed out that the investigating agency had opposed anticipatory bail before the courts below because custodial interrogation would assist in tracing the flow of funds and collecting further evidence. Counsel for the State also informed the Court that, although the accused appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the anticipatory bail order, they failed to produce documents that should have been in their possession.

The accused, in their counter affidavit, sought to attribute the litigation to a rift within the family and suggested that other family members were behind the complaint. However, the Court noted that no attempt was made by the accused to demonstrate their bona fides by producing documents evidencing the actual rate at which the land was sold.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court identified two distinct failures in the High Court's order of 15 September 2025. First, the learned Judge did not note that another Bench had dismissed the accused's bail petition on 4 August 2025 and therefore did not examine whether any changed circumstance warranted a different view. Second, the learned Judge did not advert to Vasantha's intervention application or to the fact that the complainant was the mother of accused No. 1, who alleged she had been cheated by her own family.

The High Court had characterised the matter as a real estate business dispute over the fixation of the land price. The Supreme Court rejected that framing. The Court held that the case went beyond a commercial dispute: the accused were alleged to have taken undue advantage of a family elder, a septuagenarian, and to have acted to the detriment of other family members as well. That context, the Court said, deserved far more serious consideration than the High Court gave it.

On the serial bail petitions, the Court was direct. Filing anticipatory bail petitions one after the other, in July, August and September 2025 without the court granting the third petition even acknowledging the dismissal of the second, reduced the process to “a mere gamble” and was “nothing short of an abuse of process.”

The Court also observed that, having secured anticipatory bail, the accused lost no time in filing a quash petition and obtaining a stay of all further proceedings, bringing the entire case to a grinding halt. This sequence of events formed part of the Court's assessment that the High Court's order was not sustainable.

Order

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order dated 15 September 2025 passed by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal OP (MD) No. 15133 of 2025. The anticipatory bail granted to the accused stands cancelled.