CRL A(MD)/1214/2026 of Palanikumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep on 16 October 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order declining bail by the learned Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act, Pudukkottai, in Crl.M.P.No.302 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2026, dated 13.08.2026.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are arrayed as A1 and A6 before the Trial Court. It is the case of the prosecution that, due to previous enmity, one Dinesh was murdered by the appellants herein and other co-accused. The prosecution has projected a case as if it is a case of eyewitnesses. However, it is the consistent case of the defence that the occurrence happened in a secluded place and there were no witnesses. In this case, the trial has already commenced. The alleged eyewitness, the defacto complainant, was examined as PW1 before the Trial Court. PW1 was subjected to cross- examination, wherein she clearly admitted that she had seen the dead body of her son after removing the tarpaulin placed over the corpse, which clearly signifies that she is not an eyewitness. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that, in this case, the services of sniffer dogs were utilised, which also clearly discloses that it is not a case of eyewitnesses. That is, if the prosecution had known the involvement of the appellants and other co-accused, they would not have used the services of sniffer dogs. Therefore, subsequently, the case was fabricated against these appellants and other co-accused as if the alleged eyewitnesses had seen the occurrence.

3. The prosecution has not produced all the eyewitnesses at a time, but they are all being fielded one by one. Therefore, an application to defer the cross-examination was filed and permitted by the Trial Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants have been in custody since 13.03.2026 and has been in incarceration for about seven months. The appellants are co-operating with the trial and they have undertaken that they will face the trial through counsel and will not dispute their identity before the learned Trial Court. An affidavit was sworn to that effect. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Court for trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that one Dinesh was murdered by the appellants herein and seven other accused.

A1 to A4 are the assailants and the others guarded the place while the commission of crime. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a clear case of eyewitness account. Though the prosecution has not examined PW1 to PW3, the defence has cross- examined only PW1 and they cannot take advantage of the slip answer given by the prosecution witness. It is a highly sensitive murder case and there is a specific overt act alleged against these appellants. The eyewitness account clearly indicates the guilt of the appellants herein. Though this Court has granted bail to the co-accused, they are not the actual assailants. Further, the appellants have previous cases and therefore, she strongly opposed the grant of bail to the appellants.

5. Notice was issued to the mother of the deceased / defacto complainant. She is present today before this Court in person and is represented by counsel. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that her son was murdered in her presence by the appellants and other co-accused. The victim is facing threats from the appellants that the eyewitnesses shall not depose before the Trial Court. If the accused are released on bail, it would demoralise the prosecution witnesses and deter them from deposing before the Trial Court. Therefore, she strongly opposed the grant of bail to the appellants.

6. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions put forth by either side.

7. On careful perusal of the records, it is found that it is a case of the murder of one Dinesh. Though the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution's case that it is a case of eyewitnesses is falsified by the cross-examination of PW1, this Court does not venture to make any comments, as the matter is pending before the Trial Court. The fact remains that the investigation has already been completed. The trial has already commenced. The prosecution witnesses, PW1 to PW3, have already been examined. Out of them, PW1 was cross-examined by the defence. The appellants could satisfy the Trial Court and get the cross- examination of the other eyewitnesses deferred, as all the witnesses were not produced at a time.

8. The appellants were arrested on 15.03.2026 and has been in incarceration since then. Though apprehension was raised by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that the release of the appellants would demoralise the prosecution witnesses, it could be seen that the witnesses have already deposed before the Trial Court. Further, the appellants have undertaken that he will co-operate with the speedy disposal of the trial and will not dispute their identity during the trial.

9. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellants have certain previous bad antecedents, they are on bail in those cases as well. Therefore, considering all the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the principle is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Therefore, until the guilt is proven, the appellants are presumed to be innocent and hence, even though he is facing graver charges, this Court is inclined to grant bail. However, with stringent following conditions:

i) The appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act Cases, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

ii) The appellants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address;

iii) The appellants and the sureties shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the respondent police that the appellants will not involve in any offence in future.

iv) The appellants shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode daily at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., until further orders, except the days, on which their appearance is required before the trial Court.

v) The appellants shall co-operate with the trial and shall not dispute their identity during the trial.

vi) On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellants, the respondent police is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Indu To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai Town, Pudukkottai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

S.KARTHIKEYAN, J. Indu CRL A(MD) No. 1214 of 2026 16-10-2026