CRL A/1093/2026 of Joseph Tamizharasan @ Joseph Vs State Represented by Station House Officer on 28 September 2026

Judgment

The appellant/accused in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2026 facing trial for offence under Section 103(1) BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, had filed a bail application before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1094 of 2026, which was dismissed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, by order dated 29.07.2026, against which the present appeal is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the deceased and the appellant were in love relationship for the past five years. Earlier, the appellant had married another lady and they had a son of 12 years old. Later his wife deserted the appellant along with his son and the appellant filed an H.M.O.P., which is pending. This is known to the deceased as well as to her parents and family members. The deceased was in a love affair with the appellant, however, nine months before, she got employment at Pothys showroom, where she developed an interest in another person and thereafter she started to neglect and avoid the appellant, which was questioned. In fact, the appellant had gone to the house of the deceased and sought for a marriage to her parents. They had objection, since he is a married person. The appellant informed that already he filed H.M.O.P., his wife deserted him and after obtaining divorce he would marry the deceased. In the meanwhile, the deceased developed other interest, which angered the appellant and he questioned her. In fact, two days prior to the occurrence, the appellant saw the deceased with the

CRL A No. 1093 of 2026

newly developed love affair person, which was questioned and there was a wordy quarrel. The Patrol Police came there, took the deceased and the appellant to the police station, and thereafter warned them and sent them away. But the deceased not shown any remorse and she betrayed the appellant, hence in a fit of rage, the appellant poured kerosene, attempted self-immolation and set fire to both. The deceased died on the next day, but the appellant got admitted in JIPMER hospital, Puducherry and he took treatment till 11.05.2026, which would show that the appellant acted in a fit of rage and nothing more.

3. He further submitted that in this case the deceased and her family members converted to Christianity and they cannot be said to be a person hailing from SC community. He further submitted that there is a provision of Civil Right Cell in Union Territory of Puducherry, which is notified to investigate the offence under SC/ST Act. In this case, the investigating officer is an I.P.S. officer from other State, who does not even know Tamil and she took assistance of the others even to record the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that it is clearly a love affair, in a fit of rage the following things happened. Further the statement of the mother of the deceased, which was recorded in one line that the appellant had immolated her daughter only because she belonged to SC community, is not proper. In fact, there are other witnesses to show that the appellant was very much interested to marry the deceased and it was due to the deceased’s conduct and a new developed love

CRL A No. 1093 of 2026

affair, the marriage could not be done. Further, in this case, investigation completed, charge sheet filed, and to have a fair trial the appellant needs to come out and give instructions to his advocate to defend his case. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the appellant.

4. The learned Government Advocate, Puducherry strongly opposed the appellant’s contention and filed a counter affidavit submitting that on 13.03.2026, while the Sub-Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, was on rounds at about 21.45 hours, he received an information that a person attempted to commit murder on a girl by pouring petrol near Uzhavar Sandhai Old Bus Stand, Puducherry. Immediately, he rushed to the spot, where the injured was already taken to the Government Hospital, Puducherry. Then he went to the hospital, examined the injured, Sharmila, who was taking treatment, at the female burns ward in the presence of duty medical officer and recorded the complaint. From the complaint, it is seen that on 13.03.2026, the deceased after completing her work at Pothys, was proceeding to her house by walk. At that time, the appellant to commit murder, poured petrol and set her on fire. He had also uttered ‘If you don’t live with me, I won’t let you live’ and set fire with cigarette lighter. Thus, Crime No.40 of 2026 for offence under Section 109 of BNS registered. Thereafter, during investigation, the police photographer, forensic expert, all visited the scene of occurrence. The forensic expert collected burnt materials from the scene of occurrence, including the burnt umbrella,

CRL A No. 1093 of 2026

Pothys ID card, plastic bucket, slipper and other properties under the cover of Mahazar. Thereafter, information received that the appellant was admitted at JIPMER hospital. Hence, Police Constables were put on guard at the hospital. The Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, collected community certificate of the appellant and the deceased. The deceased had also given dying declaration, which was recorded in presence of the Doctor after getting fitness certificate. The accused had given a confession that he earlier married and later developed love with the deceased and the deceased after joining Pothys had developed interest with another person, and there was a quarrel. All these facts recorded and now charge sheet filed listing 46 witnesses.

5. He further submitted that in this case, the family members of the deceased examined to show that the appellant stalking the deceased and causing harassment. LW11 to LW15 are the eyewitnesses, who were present near the scene of occurrence, who had clearly identified the appellant and his overt act. LW11 and LW12 took the deceased to the Doctor. LW16 to LW19 reside in the vicinity of the scene of occurrence. LW20 and LW21 are the witnesses for confession and recovery. LW22 to LW24 are the witnesses, who were employed in Pothys, confirm that the appellant had come to the showroom, picked up quarrel with the deceased and her present friend. LW25 to LW32 are the witnesses, who speak about CCTV recording and other facts. LW35 to LW46 are the official witnesses. He further submitted that in this case, though

CRL A No. 1093 of 2026

the appellant had filed two bail applications before the trial Court and the present bail application before this court, he had thought fit not to engage any counsel and to face trial. The trial Court had now written to the Legal Services Authority to appoint a counsel. He further submitted that the appellant’s burn injuries confirms that he was very much present in the scene of occurrence and it is now projected as though the appellant had also attempted for self- immolation, which is not proper. As could be seen from the burn injuries, it is below his hip and it is only 25%, but the deceased was with the injuries of 85%. He further submitted that with regard to the technical grounds raised by the appellant, it is a matter for trial, and at the time of trial, he can raise his points.

6. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the de facto complainant/second respondent filed his written submissions and objections and submitted that in this case the deceased was employed in Pothys shop. The deceased had initially shown interest on the appellant, later on coming to know the fact that the appellant had suppressed his earlier marriage and 12 year old son, she started keeping away from the appellant, but the appellant continued to stalk, threaten and force her, which the deceased and her family members were resisting. Even two days prior to the occurrence, the appellant went and picked up quarrel in the middle of the road at about 9:30 p.m. The Patrol Police had gone and rescued the deceased and the appellant had given an undertaking that he will not disturb the deceased, but contrary to the undertaking, he brought petrol with him and

CRL A No. 1093 of 2026

poured petrol on the deceased when she was walking out to her house at about 9:30 p.m and set her on fire. The deceased sustained 85% burn injuries and some petrol spilled over the appellant, which caught fired, but now the appellant is making a defence that he had also attempted to immolate himself. Further, when the deceased was alive, the appellant used to come and pressure the deceased’s parents and others to arrange a marriage even before he could get divorce from his first wife. If such being his attitude, if bail is granted, he would threaten the witnesses and the witnesses would not be free to give evidence. He further submitted that the appellant so far, not even engaged a counsel and now taking a ground that if bail is granted, he would instruct his counsel, which is only for obtaining bail. Hence, he strongly opposed for granting bail.

7. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, this Court finds no reason to entertain this appeal. The appellant’s primary ground that the investigation has been completed and to defend his case he has to come out and give instructions to his counsel cannot be countenanced. Since the appellant is in prison from 13.03.2026 and now investigation completed, charge sheet filed and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2026 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Puducherry/Special Court. Till date, the appellant has not thought fit to engage a counsel to defend his case. The trial Court had given sufficient opportunity, thereafter, sent a letter to the Legal Services Authority to engage a counsel. Now, the case is posted to

CRL A No. 1093 of 2026

07.10.2026 for framing of charges and trial. Hence, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The other grounds raised by the appellant are technical, which has to be decided during trial. If the petitioner engages a counsel and gives an undertaking that he would not be a reason for any delay and proceed with the trial, then the trial Court may consider his bail application.

8. With the above observations, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

9. This Court appreciates Mr.Swami Subramanian, Legal Aid Counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant for his strenuous efforts in doing research and putting forth the case of the victim effectively. The Legal Services Authority shall pay the remuneration to the Legal Aid Counsel as per Rules. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI

CRL A No. 1093 of 2026

To

1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

2. The Station House Officer, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.

CRL A No. 1093 of 2026

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. RSI CRL A No. 1093 of 2026 28-09-2026