New Delhi, May 20 (IANS) The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Madras High Court granting anticipatory bail to a man and his wife, accused of cheating his 75-year-old mother in a multi-crore property transaction case, observing that repeated bail pleas filed in quick succession reduce the legal process to a ‘mere gamble’ and amount to abuse of process.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by the complainant Vasantha, challenging the Madras High Court order granting anticipatory bail to her son Karthikeyan Manikandan and daughter-in-law Vasupradha.

Describing the dispute as a “sordid saga of a mother accusing her son and daughter-in-law of cheating her”, the apex court found that the allegations disclosed serious financial irregularities and exploitation of a senior citizen.

According to the FIR registered at Trichy City Police Station in May 2025 under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, the complainant alleged that the accused induced her to transfer family properties and subsequently misappropriated the proceeds from the sale of land.

The complainant stated that she was made to believe that around 11.33 acres of land had been sold at Rs 85 lakh per acre and that approximately Rs 9.65 crore was credited into a bank account opened in her name. However, she alleged that the amount was withdrawn by the accused persons.

She further alleged that she later discovered the land had actually been sold at Rs 2.75 crore per acre and that nearly Rs 22 crore had allegedly been paid separately to the accused.

The FIR also alleged that she was made to transfer her house to her son on the promise of being maintained, but was eventually driven out and rendered homeless.

The anticipatory bail pleas filed by the accused before the Sessions Court in Tiruchirapalli were rejected in July 2025. Their subsequent plea before the Madras High Court was also dismissed on August 4, 2025, with the High Court observing that custodial interrogation was necessary as the investigation was at a preliminary stage. However, within a month, the accused filed a fresh anticipatory bail plea before another Bench of the High Court and secured relief on September 15, 2025.

Taking exception to this approach, the apex court observed that the Madras High Court failed to even note that an earlier bail plea had been rejected by another Bench just weeks earlier.

“The learned Judge did not note the fact that another Bench had, on 04.08.2025, dismissed the bail petition moved by the accused and, therefore, did not even go into the issue as to whether there was any changed circumstance warranting a different view being taken,” the Supreme Court said.

The Justice Sanjay Kumar-led Bench added: “Filing of anticipatory bail petitions in quick succession in this manner, viz., three petitions in three months, reduces that legal process, which is intended to pre-emptively secure the personal liberty of an individual in deserving cases, to a mere gamble and is nothing short of an abuse of process.”

It further found that immediately after securing anticipatory bail, the accused moved a petition seeking quashing of the FIR and obtained a stay of further proceedings, bringing the investigation to a grinding halt.

Referring to the nature of allegations, the top court observed: “Given the near relationship between the parties and the fact that the accused are alleged to have taken undue advantage of a family elder, a septuagenarian, and also acted to the detriment of the other family members, we are of the opinion that this was not a fit case for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail.”

The apex court further criticised the Madras High Court for treating the matter as a mere commercial dispute involving disagreement over land price. “The case went beyond that and deserved a far more serious consideration than that given by the learned Judge while extending relief to the accused,” the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Madras High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused.

–IANS

pds/vd