While setting aside the grant of anticipatory bail in a property dispute case involving an old woman and her son as well as daughter-in-law, the Supreme Court has held that the filing of anticipatory bail petitions in quick succession reduces the legal process, which is intended to pre-emptively secure the personal liberty of an individual in deserving cases, to a mere gamble.

The Apex Court was considering a matter where a mother accused her son and daughter-in-law of cheating her.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “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. We may also note that, having secured the relief of anticipatory bail, the accused lost no time in filing a quash petition in October, 2025, and secured stay of all further proceedings. In effect, the accused brought the entire case to a grinding halt.”

AOR Manju Jetley represented the Appellant while AOR Sabarish Subramanian represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant mother lodged an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 24 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. In her complaint, she stated that she was a 75-year-old widow with two sons and three daughters. According to her, the first accused and his wife got all the family properties transferred in her name by way of a family settlement and, thereafter, got her to sell an extent of land admeasuring Ac. 11.33 Cents for developing a layout. She was told that the land had been sold at the price of ₹85,00,000 per acre and ₹9,65,34,775 was credited into the bank account. However, the said amount was also withdrawn by both the accused.

She further stated that she received a notice from the Income Tax department calling upon her to pay a huge sum towards tax, and at that stage, she was informed that a sum of about ₹22 crore was paid separately to the accused, apart from the money deposited in her account. She alleged that the accused had transferred her house in the name of the first accused, promising to maintain her, but they drove her out, rendering her homeless. The anticipatory bail petitions filed by the two accused were dismissed. The accused then approached the Madras High Court, praying for the grant of anticipatory bail. However, the High Court denied them relief, noting the allegations levelled against them.

The accused came up with a fresh anticipatory bail petition in Criminal Petition before the High Court. The High Court granted relief to the accused. The Judge observed in the order that a real estate business was being conducted, and there was a money dispute between the parties regarding the fixation of the rate of the land. Having secured anticipatory bail, the accused then filed a Criminal Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the quashing of the FIR. The High Court granted a stay of all further proceedings. Aggrieved by the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the accused filed three anticipatory bail petitions, one after the other, in July, August and September, 2025. It was noticed that the Judge did not note the fact that another Bench had, on August 4, 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 Bench was of the view that filing of anticipatory bail petitions in quick succession reduced the legal process and was nothing short of an abuse of process.

“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 to the accused by treating it as a mere real estate business in which there was a dispute as to the land price.”

As per the Bench, the case went beyond that and deserved a far more serious consideration than that given by the Judge while extending relief to the accused.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court.

Cause Title: Vasantha v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 513)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Manju Jetley, Advocate S D Dwarakanath

Respondent: AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Senior Advocate A. Mariarputham, Advocates Arpitha Anna Mathew, Ram Sankar, AOR M/s. Ram Sankar & Co.

Click here to read/download Judgment







Justice Sanjay KumarJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.