CRL A/1214/2026 of Kumar @ Sottai Kumar Vs The State Rep by The Deputy Spuperintendent of Pol on 9 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.262 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.34 of 2024, dated 22.07.2026, cancelling the bail granted to the appellant in Crime No.62 of 2024, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

CRL A No.1214 of 2026

2. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant/A2, along with the other accused, had waylaid the de-facto complainant, humiliated him on account of his caste, and committed theft of his relative’s mobile phone.

3. The appellant was arrested initially on 26.02.2024 and was released on bail on 26.03.2024. It appears that the appellant was involved in Crime No.484 of 2025, registered under Section 103(1) of the BNS, and thereafter he was arrested in that case and detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982). The prosecution, therefore, filed a cancellation of bail, which was allowed by the impugned order.

4. Mr.C.Deepak Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant/A2, would submit that after the impugned order was passed, the detention order was revoked; that the appellant had also obtained bail in Crime No. 484 of 2025, and therefore, his further detention is unnecessary for the purpose of trial, and he prayed for setting aside the order and releasing him on bail.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

CRL A No.1214 of 2026

5. Mr.P.Gowtham, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the de-facto complainant/third respondent, however, would submit that the appellant is a habitual offender, and he was involved in a murder case, and therefore, the impugned order is justified, and there is no reason to interfere with the said order.

6. Ms.Sharada Vivek, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the first and second respondents, reiterated the submissions made by the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the de-facto complainant/third respondent.

7. It is seen from the impugned order that the bail granted to the appellant was cancelled mainly because he was involved in Crime No.484 of 2025, registered for the offence under 103(1) of BNS. Since the appellant had misused his liberty while on bail, there is absolutely no infirmity in the impugned order cancelling the bail granted to the appellant. However, considering the fact that pursuant to the impugned order, the detention order passed against the appellant has been revoked, and the appellant has also obtained bail in the murder case registered in Crime No.484 of 2025, the appellant is at liberty to move a

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

CRL A No.1214 of 2026

bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, which may be considered by the learned Sessions Judge on merits.

8. With the above observation, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

9. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the scheduled fees to Mr.P.Gowtham, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the de-facto complainant/third respondent. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

CRL A No.1214 of 2026

To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mettur, Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station, Salem.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )

CRL A No.1214 of 2026

SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk CRL A No. 1214 of 2026 09-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:38:59 pm )