CRL A(MD)/1164/2026 of Naveen Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. on 27 October 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order declining bail passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.424 of 2026 dated 23.07.2026.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was standing near the hotel when some unknown persons attacked him and caused his death. Therefore, initially, the case was registered in Crime No.302 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against unknown persons. Subsequently, a final report was filed against 18 accused. The appellant herein is arrayed as A1. As per the case of the prosecution, he is the prime Accused, conspired to cause the death of the deceased and successfully executed it. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, since the appellant has some previous bad antecedents, he was falsely roped in the present crime also. The investigation was already completed and the final report was filed before the Trial Court, which was taken on file in S.C.No.75 of 2024.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant was originally released on bail by the Trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.3136 of 2024 vide order dated 11.09.2024, on the condition that he should report before the Cheyyar Police Station daily twice at 9.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., until further orders. Since the appellant had suffered a life threat, he was unable to comply with the said condition. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, though bail was granted on 11.09.2024 itself, the appellant was booked under the Goondas Act and therefore, he came out on bail only on 03.06.2025, after the detention order was revoked by this Court. On 22.08.2025, the State moved an application seeking cancellation of bail in Cr.M.P.No.325 of 2025. The application was heard and the Trial Court, by order dated 28.10.2025, allowed the petition and cancelled the bail granted by it. The only ground on which the bail was cancelled was that the appellant herein had failed to appear before the respondent Police as directed by the Trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Sheik Irshad @ Monu Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185, to show that, after filing of the charge sheet and committal to the Court of Session, a direction to appear before the Police Station is prima facie not tenable. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that cancellation of bail merely on the ground of non- appearance at the Police Station may not be a correct approach and good ground. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the order cancelling bail itself is erroneous.

5. Subsequently, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the appellant, and the appellant herein was taken into custody on 11.05.2026. He has been in incarceration since then. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant failed to comply with the bail condition only due to the life threat. Now that he is ready to comply with the conditions that may be imposed by this Court, in the event of he being released on bail. The co- accused were granted bail by the Trial Court as well as by this Court. All the co-accused who were released on bail are complying with the conditions without any deviations. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court and for granting bail to the appellant.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on 20.05.2024 at 13.30 hours one Deepak Raja was brutally murdered by the appellant herein and other co-accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further submitted that the Appellant was granted bail on specific condition that he shall stay at Kanchipuram and sign before the Cheyyar Police Station. Though the appellant herein came out of jail on 03.06.2025, he did not comply with the condition even for a single day. Therefore, on 22.08.2025, the respondent Police moved a bail cancellation petition before the Trial Court and the Trial Court has cancelled the bail. The said order was not challenged. The appellant and the other co-accused were not complying with the conditions and often went absconding to prevent the progress of the trial. Though the charge sheet was filed in the year 2024 itself, due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the appellant and the other co-accused, the Trial Court is not even in a position to even frame charges against the accused. Now, the case against A8 has been split up and the case is posted for framing of charges against the remaining accused. If the appellant were released on bail, he would abscond and would not allow the trial to proceed further. The appellant had Seventeen previous cases, including murder cases and attempted to murder cases. During bail period, he involved in 4 criminal cases. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant of bail to the appellant.

7. Notice was issued to the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant appeared through the counsel.

8. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant/R3 contended that his brother, Deepak Raja, was brutally murdered on 20.05.2024 at 13.30 hours by the appellant herein and other co-accused. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.75 of 2024.

9. Further, the appellant herein was arrested on 26.05.2024 and was subsequently enlarged on bail by the Trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.3136 of 2024 by order dated 11.09.2024, subject to the condition that he should stay in Kanchipuram District and appear and sign before the Cheyyar Police Station daily at 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders. The appellant was released from prison and came out; however, from the date of his release, he failed to comply with the condition even for a single day and was absconding. During the period of his absence, he was involved in yet another criminal offence and a case was registered against him, following which he was remanded to judicial custody. Further, the de facto complainant and other witnesses were threatened by the appellant herein and other co-accused and attempts were made to tamper with the witnesses. The threats were brought to the notice of the first respondent. The first respondent moved an application for cancellation of bail in Cr.M.P.No.325 of 2025 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the Trial Court cancelled the bail granted to the appellant herein by order dated 28.10.2025. A non-bailable warrant was issued, which was executed on 11.05.2026. The appellant/petitioner filed a bail petition before the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.424 of 2026 and the same was dismissed by order dated 23.07.2026. The Trial Court considered all the attending circumstances and passed the said impugned order. The appellant is a habitual offender, a notorious rowdy element, who has as many as 16 previous cases. Owing to the non-cooperation of the appellant and the other co-accused, the

Trial Court is not even in a position to frame charges against the accused. The de facto complainant had approached this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.18690 of 2024, seeking expeditious disposal of S.C No.75 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli and this Court was pleased to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting long adjournments beyond fifteen days. However, the appellant and other co-accused deliberately adopted dilatory tactics and delayed the proceedings. Hence, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant prays for dismissal of the bail petition.

10. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions put forth by either side. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein and other co-accused unlawfully assembled and brutally murdered one Deepak Raja on 20.05.2024. The appellant is A1. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is found that the appellant herein was arrested on 26.05.2024 and was subsequently enlarged on bail by the trial court in Cr.M.P. No.3136 of 2024 by order dated 11.09.2024. He came out of prison only on 03.06.2025, after revocation of the detention order under the Goondas Act.

11. From the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is found that, though the appellant herein came out of jail on 03.06.2025, he

did not comply with the condition even for a single day, namely, staying in Kanchipuram and signing before the Cheyyar Police Station. Therefore, on 22.08.2025, the respondent Police moved a bail cancellation petition before the Trial Court, which found that the appellant had not complied with the condition even for a single day and cancelled the bail.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheik Irshad @ Monu Vs State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185, to contend that, after the filing of the charge sheet, when the trial is in progress, a direction to appear at the Police Station is prima facie not tenable. Therefore, the cancellation of bail merely on the ground of non-appearance at the Police Station may not be a correct approach or a valid ground. However, on careful perusal of the said decision, it is found that the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, in that case, after the filing of the charge sheet, the trial had commenced and the accused was regularly attending court. However, in this case, after the appellant came out of jail following the revocation of the detention order passed under the Goondas Act, he never appeared before the Police Station or before the Trial Court.

13. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was facing a life threat and therefore, was unable to comply with the conditions, the same was not substantiated by any relevant materials. From the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is found that the appellant and the other co-accused were not complying with the conditions and often went absconding to prevent the progress of the trial. Though the charge sheet was filed in the year 2024 itself, due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the appellant and the other co-accused, the Trial Court is not even in a position to frame charges against the accused. Now, the case against A8 has been split up and the case is posted for framing of charges against the remaining accused.

14. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, it is found that the de facto complainant had already approached this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18690 of 2024, seeking an expeditious trial of S.C.No.75 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli and this Court also directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case as early as possible without granting long adjournments beyond fifteen days. From the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is clear that charges have not yet been framed. Therefore, at this juncture, if the appellant is released on bail, it would not be conducive for the speedy disposal of the above case.

15. Further, on careful perusal of the records, this Court found that the Trial Court, after considering the relevant facts, cancelled the bail and the said order was not challenged by the appellant herein. In the given circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Indu To

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

2. The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City.

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

S.KARTHIKEYAN, J. Indu Crl.A(MD) No.1164 of 2026 27-10-2026