As per case facts, the deceased P.K. Muthukumar, an advocate, and the defacto complainant were actively opposing the bail applications of the accused involved in an earlier murder case of ...
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On:29.04.2026
Pronounced On: 01.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025
S.Suthersan ... Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu rep by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sipcot Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
(Crime No.48 of 2023)
2.P.K.Ramkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER:- This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) (2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to
set aside the order dated 20.01.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.1196 of 2024 on the
file of the Special Court for Trial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi and to enlarge the appellant on bail
in connection with Crime No.48 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent
police.
1/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
For Appellant: Mr.B.Arulmozhi Maran
For Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: Mr.A.Robinson for R2
Crl.A.(MD).No.35 of 2026
Muthuraja @ Muthupandi ... Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu rep by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukdi Town SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Cr.No.48 of 2023)
3.P.K.Ramkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER:- This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) (2) of the
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2015 to call for the records and to set aside the order dated 17.10.2025
made in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Thoothukudi and to enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Criminal
2/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
case in S.C.No.25 of 2023 in Crime No.48 of 2023 on the file of the first
respondent police.
For Appellant: Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiam
For Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: Mr.A.Robinson for R2
Crl.A.(MD).No.48 of 2026
Baskar ... Appellant
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu rep by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.48 of 2023)
2.P.K.Ramkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER:- This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14A (ii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as
amended by Act 1/2016, to call for the records and to set aside the order dated
28.11.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for
Trial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Thoothukudi and to enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Criminal
case in S.C.No.25 of 2023 in Crime No.48 of 2023 on the file of the first
respondent police.
3/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
For Appellant: Mr.B.Syed Absul Wakeed
For Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
: Mr.A.Robinson for R2
COMMON ORDER
The appellants/accused Nos.6, 7 and 15 in S.C.No.25 of 2023 on the file
of the Special Court for Trial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi have filed these criminal appeals
before this Court.
2.Since these criminal appeals are arising out of the same crime, these
cases are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by way of this common
judgment
3. Brief Facts and Past Events of these Appeals:
Earlier, these appellants had filed applications seeking bail, and the same were
dismissed. More particularly, one of the appellants, namely Sutherson, the
appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025, had filed an appeal in Crl.A.
(MD).No.494 of 2023. This Court, after considering the gravity of the offence,
taking into account the continuous threat to the witnesses and the defacto
4/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
complainant, and also noting that a number of the accused have previous
antecedents, dismissed the application and issued directions to conduct the trial
in the jail premises, on the reasoning that there was a continuous threat to the
witnesses in the court premises, by issuing various directions by order dated
11.10.2023. The same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.
(Crl).No.422 of 2024.
3.1. In view of the above background of the case, for better appreciation,
this Court states the following brief facts of the prosecution case:
3.1.1.According to the prosecution, the deceased was a practising
advocate in the Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli Bar Associations. The defacto
complainant in the above crime number has two brothers. One of his brothers is
P.K. Shivakumar and the other is P.K. Muthukumar. The said P.K. Shivakumar
was murdered by a mob in front of the court campus in the presence of the
deceased P.K. Muthukumar and the defacto complainant. Hence, the
Thoothukudi South Police Station registered a case in Crime No.533 of 2019.
The investigating agency conducted the investigation in the said crime number
and filed the final report against a number of accused for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 302, 120(b) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989, and the same was taken on file as S.C.No.62 of 2020.
5/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
3.1.2.In the said case, one of the accused is Rajesh. The said Rajesh was
a friend of the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025, and the remaining
accused are close associates of the various accused in the said case. The
deceased advocate, P.K. Muthukumar, and the defacto complainant were
relentlessly taking steps to intervene in the bail applications filed by all the
accused in the said murder case of his brother, P.K. Shivakumar. The same
infuriated and provoked the accused in Crime No.533 of 2019 to hatch a plan to
eliminate P.K. Muthukumar, as he was a hurdle to them in obtaining bail.
3.1.3.Therefore, the accused, while in jail, conspired with these
appellants and other accused and murdered the said P.K. Muthukumar,
Advocate, on 22.02.2023 at about 2.15 p.m., near P.K. Gold Loan Shop at
Thoothukudi, Soreeshpuram Madhapur Road. Hence, a complaint was given
before the SIPCOT Police Station, namely, the respondent police. The
respondent police registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2023 for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, and 109 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Investigating Officer
arrested the accused and filed the final report against 15 accused, and the same
was taken on file as S.C.No.25 of 2023.
3.1.4. As observed above, Sutherson filed a bail application before the
Special Court for Trial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
6/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi, in Cr.M.P.No.1196 of 2024, stating that in spite
of the direction given by this Court to complete the trial within a period of two
months, the trial has not been completed, and hence, his right to a speedy trial
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed, and pre-trial
incarceration of more than three years is not permissible. The said application
was dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.01.2025. Challenging the same,
Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 has been filed.
3.1.5.Similarly, the other accused, namely, the appellants in Crl.A.
(MD).Nos.48 and 35 of 2026, also filed bail applications before the trial Court
in Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.267 and 170 of 2025. The learned trial Judge dismissed
the same vide impugned orders dated 17.10.2025 and 28.11.2025 respectively.
Challenging the same, the appellants in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.48 and 35 of 2026
have filed these appeals.
4.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2026, namely, Accused/Bhaskar:
The learned counsel would submit that the appellant has been arrayed as
an accused solely on the basis of the confession of a co-accused. It is contended
that, apart from such confession, the only material relied upon by the
prosecution is the call detail records (CDR), which, according to the learned
7/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
counsel, do not independently establish the alleged conspiracy.
4.1.The gravamen of the allegation against the appellant is that he
conspired with the principal accused, who are the main assailants, and
facilitated the commission of the offence. However, it is argued that the
prosecution has failed to produce any substantive evidence, except the
inadmissible confession of a co-accused, to establish such conspiracy.
4.2.The learned counsel would further contend that the appellant was
subjected to illegal custody, and a complaint in that regard had been lodged
before the competent authority. It is thus submitted that the continued
incarceration of the appellant for a period exceeding two years, without
conclusion of trial, amounts to a violation of his fundamental right to personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of
his contention he relied the following precedents:
(i)In the case of Dheeraj Wadhawan vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 1212
(ii)In the case of Karan Talwar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in
2024 INSC 1012
(iii)In the case of Chitan Rajubhai Panseriya vs. The State of
8/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Maharashtra reported in S.L.P.(Crl.).No.439 of 2026
(iv)In the case of Gopinath vs. The State in Crl.A.No.1177 of 2025
(v)In the case of Kalaiselvan vs. The State in Crl.A.No.1888 of 2025
5.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025, namely, accused/Sutherson:
A similar submission was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.429 of 2025. In addition thereto, it was
contended that the appellant seeks interim bail on humanitarian grounds. It is
submitted that the appellant’s wife had sustained injuries in an accident and
requires medical treatment, and further that his mother, as well as another
family member, are suffering from serious health issues. On the aforesaid
grounds, the learned counsel prayed for grant of interim bail.
6.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2026 namely, accused/Muthuraja @
Muthupandi:
In spite of the direction given by this Court in Crl.A. (MD)No.601/2023,
Judgment dated 09.02.2024, the trial proceedings has not moved an inch.
Therefore, the incarceration of more than three years without trial amount to the
9/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and also in this case more than 90 witnesses have to be examined and the
same would consume more time and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial
in near future and in the similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
various decisions was pleased to grant bail.
6.1.All the learned counsel relied the following precedents in support of
the plea for bail, and would contend that prolonged pre-trial detention, in the
absence of substantial evidence, justifies enlargement on bail. In support of his
contention they relied the following precedents:
(i)In the case of Aadya Prasad Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another in Crl.A.No.195 of 2026
(ii)In the case of Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported
in 2026 INSC 12
7.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the de facto
complainant
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant has
filed detailed counters and would submit that the very same grounds had
already been considered and rejected by this Court at an earlier stage. This
10/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Court, while rejecting the earlier bail application, had taken into account the
grave nature of the accusations, including allegations of murder, and more
significantly, the subsequent elimination of material witnesses.
7.1.It is further submitted that, based on a detailed report received from
the Intelligence Department, this Court had invoked the principles underlying
witness protection and directed that the trial be conducted within the prison
premises as a special case. The said order was carried in appeal and came to be
confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7.2.The learned counsel would also submit that the accused persons have
consistently attempted to delay the trial proceedings, including through acts of
misconduct by counsel, thereby impeding the commencement and progress of
trial. It is pointed out that the trial has now commenced, several witnesses have
already been examined, and the matter has reached a crucial stage.
7.3.During the course of trial, further incidents of intimidation of
witnesses have been reported, resulting in the registration of another FIR, and
the arrest of one of the accused. It is contended that the threats to witnesses
continue, with increased severity even after dismissal of the earlier bail
11/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
application.
7.4.In such circumstances, it is submitted that the prosecution is likely to
conclude the trial within a period of two months, and at this advanced stage of
the proceedings, the grant of bail would not be advisable, notwithstanding the
period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant. He relied the
following precedents:
(i)In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias
Pappuyadav an another reported in 2005 (2) SCC 42
(ii)In the case of Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar and another reported
in 2022 (4) SCC 497
(iii)In the case of Ashok Dhankad vs. State of Delhi and another in
Crl.A.No.3495 of 2025
(iv)In the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc., reported in
2025 SCC Online SC 1702
(v)In the case of Neeru Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in 2014 16 SCC 508
(vi) In the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs Ashis Chatterjee, reported
in (2010) 14 SCC 496
12/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
8.Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for State:
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.S.Ravi assisted by senior
and high-ranking police officials, would submit before this Court that the
prosecution witnesses are under grave and imminent threat. It is pointed out
that the registration of a subsequent FIR, at the very place where the prison
premises is situated, itself demonstrates the seriousness and continuity of the
threat perception.
8.1.It is further submitted that, notwithstanding the precautionary
measure of conducting the trial within the prison premises, two material
witnesses have already turned hostile due to intimidation. This, according to the
learned Public Prosecutor, establishes that the threat to witnesses is not illusory
but real, persistent, and capable of undermining the administration of justice.
8.2.The learned Public Prosecutor would also bring to the notice of this
Court that during the transit of witnesses from Tuticorin District to Tirunelveli
District, there exists a consistent and credible apprehension of interference and
intimidation. In such circumstances, it is urged that the recording of evidence
through video conferencing would be necessary to safeguard the witnesses and
13/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
to hold meaningful trial.
8.3.Apart from the above, it is submitted that the accused persons are
presently lodged in different prison facilities owing to specific intelligence
inputs and security considerations. Consequently, the production of all accused
before the trial Court on each hearing date necessitates the deployment of
substantial police force, often exceeding fifty personnel, thereby imposing a
significant logistical and security burden on the State machinery.
8.4.In view of the above constraints, the learned Public Prosecutor would
urge that this Court may permit the conduct of trial proceedings, including the
appearance of the accused, through video conferencing, without insisting upon
their physical production before the Court. It is emphasized that such a course
would be particularly justified in cases of this nature, where several accused
have prior criminal antecedents, including one of the present appellants, and
where the risk to witnesses and public order remains demonstrably high.
8.5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.S.Ravi would also
strongly oppose the said plea and submit that the grounds urged by the
appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 are wholly untenable and factually
14/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
incorrect. It is contended that the claim regarding the medical condition of the
appellant’s wife is false and has been projected only to secure interim bail. The
prosecution would further submit that the appellant was employed as a software
engineer in Chennai and had been frequently visiting the prison premises, and
that official records would disclose that he had been in regular contact with the
co-accused.
8.6.It is further alleged that the appellant had indulged in unlawful
activities even while in custody, including unauthorized possession and use of a
mobile phone within the prison, thereby actively involving himself in
coordinating matters relating to the case. On such conduct, it is contended that
the appellant is not entitled to any discretionary relief on sympathetic or
humanitarian considerations.
8.7.He would also reiterate that, as already recorded, there exists a
consistent and continuing threat to prosecution witnesses. It is pointed out that
two material witnesses, particularly in relation to the aspect of conspiracy, were
subjected to intimidation and have consequently turned hostile.
15/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
8.8.In this regard, it is submitted that the de facto complainant had
moved an application before the trial court seeking appropriate relief; however,
the learned trial Judge dismissed the same while granting liberty to approach
the competent court by filing an application under the witness protection
mechanism, including under the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
8.9.In the light of the above, it is contended that the threat perception to
witnesses continues unabated, and the trial has now reached a crucial stage. The
prosecution is expected to complete the examination of the remaining witnesses
within a period of two months.
8.10.Therefore, it is submitted that at this advanced stage of the trial, the
grant of interim bail, particularly on the basis of prolonged incarceration or on
unsubstantiated medical grounds, would not be justified.
9.Counter Affidavit of the second respondent / defacto complainant:
23.I submit that the petitioner/accused may claim that he
has not presented in the scene of occurrence and he did not
physically participated in the said occurrence that may not be a
ground to consider his bail application for the reason that the
16/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
idea of killing my brother is conceived on the minds of the accused
who were detained in the jail and they could not execute the
murder physically and in order to give a fill design to the idea of
the accused this petitioner has extended his help and have paid a
money to the accused namely Muthuraj @ Muthupandi (A7) and
he in turn paid the same to A6 namely Baskaran at Mumbai and
he came to Thoothukudi and arranged a henchmen and after only
entire occurrence had happened. Hence this petitioner is master
mind behind the execution of murder.
24.I submit that there are strong materials as against this
petitioner/accused to substantiate the charge against him. I
further submit that this petitioner/accused also actively
participated in the execution of the murder which was imagined
by the accused in Crime No.533/2019 and this petitioner/accused
have made it in to reality by extending his help by providing the
money in order to help his friend namely Rajesh who is arrayed as
A1 in the Crime No.533/2019. In fact, the Accused No.1 namely
Jeya Prakash is the brother of the said Rajesh and this
petitioner/accused has pleaded in his earlier petition that he is not
aware of said Rajesh (A1) in the above Crime No.48/2023.
25.I submit that this petitioner/accused is not an innocent
and with an evil mind in order to help his friend said Rajesh he
had extended his help by providing money to the accused prior to
the commission of offence and after commission of offence and all
the accused are remain in a judicial custody and the all accused
in the earlier case in Crime No.533/2019 are also in the judicial
custody.
17/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
27.I respectfully submit that mere fact that the
appellant/accused had undergone certain period of incarceration
itself would not entitle the appellant/accused to being enlarged on
bail. It is settled law that the number of days that a person stays in
jail which becomes irrelevant for the purpose of considering
whether he is entitled to bail or not.
10.Counter affidavit of the 1
st
respondent/Police Officer:
10.I submit that in the accused Muthuraj detained at the
Nagercoil Sub-Jail were also caught having in possession of mobile
phones inside the jail premises and the case in Nesamony Nagar PS
Crime No.6 of 2025 came to be registered against the accused.
Earlier, the accused Rajesh @ Rajeshwaran detained at the
Poonamallee Jail were also caught having possession of mobile
phones inside the jail premises and the case in Poonamallee
P.S.Crime No.994 of 2024 came to be registered against the
accused. The accused using every tactic to sabotage the process of
Trial. Earlier, the accused Rajesh @ Rajeshwaran detained at the
Puzhal Jail were also caught having possession of mobile phones
inside the jail premises and the case in Puzhal P.S.Crime No.1111
of 2025 came to be registered against the accused. The accused are
using every tactic to sabotage the process of trial.
11.I submit that the accused Sutherson detained at the
Perurani District Jail were also caught having in possession of
mobile phones inside the jail premises and the case in Thattapparai
18/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
P.S.Crime No.33 of 2026 came to be registered against the accused.
12.I Submit that with all special arrangements, the trial in
S.C.No.25 of 2023 commenced and despite several threat from the
accused, the defacto complainant (L.W.1) has deposed before the
learned Trial Court about the entire occurrence on 15.04.2026 and
other eye witnesses in the above case in S.C.No.25 of 2023 turned
hostile due to the severe threat from the accused. The case in Crime
No.216 of 2026 on the file of the Palayamkottai Police Station came
to be registered on 26.03.2026 on the basis of the complaint
preferred by the defacto complainant because of the threat he as
well as the other witnesses were inflicted by the men of the accused.
The threat is so real that the defacto complainant's family were also
granted police protection as per the order of this Hon'ble Court in
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5390 of 2026.
13.The respondent states that, as mentioned in the petition,
the wife of the 15
th
respondent in this case, namely, Akshaya Brinda,
has claimed that she met with an accident and is undergoing
continuous physiotherapy treatment. It is further submitted that
Akshaya Brinda is presently under the care and maintenance of her
father, Sivakumar. It is also submitted that she is currently
employed as a Software Engineer in a TRANE technology company
located at Taramani Chennai. And continues to work there.
Whenever she is granted leave, she travels alone from Chennai to
her father's residence situated at Sivathaiyapuram in Thoothukudi
District and thereafter returns.
14.It is further submitted that, contrary to the averments made
by the petitioner, the petitioner's mother, Selvarani, is presently
19/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
residing in Tambaram, Chennai, along with the petitioner's elder
sister, Monica, and continues to reside there.
15.It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue orders directing that the witnesses in this case be
examined on the scheduled Court working days.
S.N Working date List of Witnesses Nature of Witness
1 1
st
Day L.W.14, L.W.16 to L.W.19 Formal Witnesses
2 2
nd
Day L.W.20 to L.W.25 Formal Witnesses, Observation & Seizure Mahazar
Witness
3 3
rd
Day L.W.26 to L.W.31 Formal Witnesses, Observation & Seizure Mahazar
Witnesses
4 4
th
Day L.W.32 to L.W.37 Formal witnesses
L.W.38 to L.W.45 Dispensed witnesses
5 5
th
Day L.W.46 to L.W.50 Confession Witnesses
6 6
th
Day L.W.51 to L.W.55 Confessions Witnesses
7 7
th
Day L.W.55 to L.W.61 Confession Witnesses
8 8
th
Day L.W.62 to L.W.67 Formal Witnesses
9 9
th
Day L.W.68 to L.W.72 Material Witnesses
10 10
th
Day L.W.73 to L.W.78 Materials & Formal Witnesses
11 11
th
Day L.W.79 to L.W.83 Expert & Formal Witnesses
12 12
th
Day L.W.84 to L.W.88 Other, Expert & Formal Witnesses
13 13
th
Day L.W.89 to L.W.91 FIR & Formal Witnesses
14 14
th
Day L.W.92 I.O.
11.Additional Counter Affidavit of the Second Respondent
I Submit that based on my complaint the FIR was also
registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai
Police Station for the offence punishable under Section
232(1) of BNS against 11 persons namely, (I) Naina, (2)
Chinna Kutti, (3) Periya Durai, (4), Pandi Durai, (5) Seeni
Nadar, (6) Velladurai, (7) Selvam, (8) Premkumar, (9) Estate
Mani, (10) Prabu and (11) Raj Nadar out of 11 Accused, the
3
rd
accused namely Periyadurai is an accused in Crime No.
533 of 2019 in S.C.No.62 of 2020. In such a situation interim
20/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
bail if granted to the petitioner it will certainly affect the
progress of the trial as the case is in middle of the way and if
he is released on interim bail he definitely would tamper the
witnesses and his presence also could not be secured again
for conducting the trial.
5.I submit that the reasons assigned by the petitioner as
if the mother of the petitioner is suffered with some spinal
injury and the report annexed along with the interim bail
application disclosed that report was taken way back in the
year 2023, 2 ½ of years ago and the conclusion also given in
the report is also not serious one and further averment made
in the bail petition that his wife is sustained a fracture in the
left metacarpal bone that the same also is not serious one that
too the treatment was given as early as 01.02.2026 by this
time they could have recovered from the said injury as such
the reason assigned by the petitioner is not so serious to
grant interim bail as and if bail is granted it will seriously
affect the progress of the trial and already witnesses were put
under fear on the instigation of the accused in the present
case and earlier case as such the present interim bail
application has to be dismissed. The petitioner having sister
and they are staying with their family at Chennai.
21/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
12.Contents of Status report filed by prosecution:
3. Facts of the case in Palayamkottai P.S.Crime No.216 of
2026 under Section 232(1) of BNS:
It is respectfully submitted that while the Sub-Inspector of
Police Thiru A. Muthupandi was on duty as incharge of
Palayamkottai P.S on 26.03.2026 at 17.00 hours, received the
current paper in C.No.16/COP/DC-East/Prin-C/2026 dated
26.03.2026 from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police,
East, Tirunelveli City, instructed to register the case as per
instructions and on the basis of the contents of the current paper,
registered the case in Palayamkottai P.S Crime No.216/2026 u/s
232(1) of BNS. Complainant Thiru Ramkumar has stated in his
petition that he has been engaged in real estate business and is
having two elder brothers. He has two elder brothers. His 2nd
elder brother Thiru Sivakumar was hacked to death on
21.08.2019 near Thoothukudi Court. The South Police Station has
registered the case. Rajesh, Ramesh, and Murugesan, the sons of
one Jayaraman from Korampallam, Thoothukudi District along
with their brother-in-law, Periyadurai, and a hired gang, since
his elder brother and himself were eyewitnesses to this murder of
their elder brother Sivakumar, they were cited as witnesses in the
murder case to ensure legal punishment to the accused in
accordance with law. Subsequently, they endeavoured to
prosecute the aforesaid case by filing various orders before this
Hon’ble High Court and the Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court aimed at expediting the conclusion of the case and securing
protection for themselves also. All of them from the aforesaid
22/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
murderers created various hindrances and threatened them from
conducting the case and putting hurdles in their efforts.
Consequently, the aforesaid murderers conspired together,
hatched a plot, and utilized a hired gang, and joined by
Jayaprakash, the biological brother of the aforesaid accused,
attacked the complainant’s elder brother Advocate P.K.
Muthukumaran was hacked to death on 22.02.2023 at his
brother’s shop in Sorispuram, Thoothukudi. Since the
complainant and eyewitnesses to both of the aforesaid murders
are under severe threat to their lives, they have sought protection
from the courts. Consequently, the police department has been
providing security to the complainant. Subsequently, in Order No.
CrI.A(MD) No.21 of 2024, the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of the
Madras High Court has ordered that the murder trials be
conducted on a day-to-day basis within the premises of the
Palayamkottai Central Prison. Challenging this order, the
accused in the murder case filed an appeal in SLP (Crl) No.
442/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and on
15.04.2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld and confirmed the
order issued by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
While the trial for both the murder cases is currently underway in
a court established within the Palayamkottai Central Prison
premises, a total of eight individuals namely:
Naina of Sethurayanpudur,
Chinnakutty of Kurunthudaiyar,
Perumal (advocate at the Tirunelveli District Court),
Murugan of Ariyanallur,
23/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Pandithurai,
Seenivasan,
Velathurai, and
Advocate Selvam are actively attempting to subvert the
proceedings. They are approaching key witnesses in Case No. SC
25/2023, offering them money to turn hostile, and threatening
them with dire consequences and furthermore, they are
intimidating the key witnesses by telling them not to create
unnecessary complications, promising to pay them a sum of one to
two lakhs per head, and instructing them not to appear in court to
testify. It is evident that the actual accused in this murder case are
operating indirectly from behind the scenes, orchestrating these
subversive activities through these individuals hailing from
Tirunelveli, namely 9) Estate Mani, 10) Moolikulam Prabhu, and
11) Chettikulam Raj Nadar are operating from behind the scenes,
acting as the masterminds backing the accused in this murder
case. Possessing immense financial, manpower, and political
clout, the accused in this murder case are systematically
undermining the prosecution by intimidating and bribing all the
witnesses involved in the proceedings. In connection with the
murder case of complainant’s elder brother, the aforementioned
individuals are actively working against the complainant while
extending their support to the accused. Despite being fully aware
that the complainant belong to the Hindu Pallar community, and
that his brother’s murder trial is currently underway at the
Tuticorin Atrocities Court, the aforementioned accused persons
continue to intimidate, threaten, and tampering the witnesses
24/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
involved in the case and hence the complainant fears that he may
be denied due justice and hence requested to take appropriate
legal action against the aforementioned accused persons to
ensure that the ongoing murder trials specifically cases in SC
25/2023, SC 62/2020, and SC 63/2020 so as to proceed without
any hindrance, thereby enabling the complainant to secure due
justice. In this instant case in Palayamkottai P.S Cr.No.216/2026,
Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai P.S Thiru. Muthu Ganesh took
up investigation on 26.03.2026.
13.The learned Additional public prosecutor has furnished the
following particulars of previous antecedent of some of the Accused in
both murder cases and strenuously opposed the bail :
13.1. List of Criminal Cases on 15 Accused in SIPCOT P.S. In Crime
No.48 of 2023(second murder case/ present case)
Sl.N
o
Name of the accusedPolice StationCrime NoOffence under Section remarks
1.aJeyaprakash/A1 Pudukkottai 447 of 2020294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPCReferred
1.bJeyaprakash/A1 Thattaparrai15 of 2023353, 332, 324, 307, 506(2) of
IPC
UI
1.cJeyaprakash/A1 SIPCOT 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v0, SC/STs
(POA) Act @ 147, 148, 149, 109,
120(B), 212, 449, 302, 34 of IPC
& 3(2)(v), 3(2)9vi) of SC/ST Act
PT
2.aElangeswaran/A2 Arumuganeri
Police Station
129 of 2021448, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC
and 4 of TNPHW Act,2002
PT
2.bElangeswaran/A2 Thoothukudi 446 of 2022341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC
@ 341, 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii)
of IPC
UI
25/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
2.cElangeswaran/A2 Thoothukudi
SIPCOT
48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120B,
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v0 SC/STs
(PoA) Act @ 147, 148, 149, 109,
120(B), 212, 449, 302, 34 of IPC
& 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of SC/ST Act,
PT
3.aRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 172 of 2010294(b), 323, 377 and 506(i) of
IPC
NTF
3.bRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 294 of 2012294(b), 353, 506(ii) of IPCPT
3.cRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 412 of 2013294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPCNTF
3.dRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 316 of 2014294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPCPT
3.eRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 426 of 2014294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC & 4
of TNPHW Act,
PT
3.fRajaratjhinam/A3Allwarkuruchi154 of 2017147, 148, 294 (b), 324, 326, 452
and 506(ii) of IPC
Acq
3.gRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 161 of 2017294(b), 323, 341, 506(i) of IPC
& 3 of TNPPDL Act,
Acq
3.hRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 31 of 2018143, 151, 188, 283, 341 of IPCNTF
3.iRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 154 of 2018294(b), 324, 326, 506(ii) of IPCPT
3.jRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 315 of 2019294(b), 307, 379, 506(ii) of IPCPT
3.kRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 391 of 2021294(b), 427, 506(ii) of IPCNTF
3.lRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 204 of 2022302 of IPC PT
3.mRajaratjhinam/A3Kadaiyam 371 of 2021294(b), 324, 506(2) of IPCNTF
3.nRajaratjhinam/A3SIPCOT 48 of 2023147, 148, ddd449, 302, 109,
120(B), 212 of IPC & 3(2)(v0 of
SC/STs (PoA) Act, @ 147, 148,
149, 109, 120(B), 212, 449, 302,
34 of IPC & 3(2)(v0, 3(20(vi)
SC/St Act,
PT
4.aVelmurugan/A4 Arumuganeri 154 of 2019120(B), 294(b)m 323, 325,
506(ii) of IPC
PT
4.bVelmurugan/A4 Arumuganeri 120 of 2021147, 148, 294(b0, 323, 324 and
506(ii) of IPC
PT
4.cVelmurugan/A4 Thoothukudi
SIPCOT
48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120B,
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs,
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120(B), 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) SC/ST
Act,
PT
5.aMuthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 202 of 2019147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324
and 506(ii) of IPC
PT
5.b Muthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 212 of 2019147, 148, 149, 294(b), 307, 323,
324, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC
PT
5.cMuthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 292 of 2020294(b), 323, 324, 341, 363, 394,
395, 397 and 506(ii) of IPC
PT
5.dMuthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 120 of 2021147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324,
506(ii) of IPC
PT
26/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
5.eMuthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 71 of 2022294(b), 326, 506(ii) of IPCPT
5.fMuthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 322 of 2022120(B), 147, 148, 294(b), 307,
323, 379, 448, 506(ii) of IPC
Acq
5.gMuthuraj/A5 Thoothukudi
SIPCOT
48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149, 109
and 120(B), 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) SC/ST
Act,
PT
5.hMuthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 87 of 2022153, 504, 505(i)(b) of IPC @
120(B), 153, 504, 505 (i)(b) of
IPC
PT
5.iMuthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 77 of 2022435 of IPC @ 147, 435 of IPCPT
5.jMuthuraj/A5 Arumuganeri 17 of 2022294(b), 323, 379, 448 of IPC @
294(b), 323, 427, 448 and 506(i)
of IPC
PT
6.aBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 322 of 2022120(b), 147, 148, 294(b), 307,
323, 379, 448 and 506(2) of IPC
Acq
6.bBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 17 of 2022294(b), 323, 427, 448, 506(i) of
IPC
PT
6.cBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 306 of 2020294(b), 341, 387, 506(2) of IPCPT
6.dBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 292 of 2020294(b), 323, 324, 241, 363, 394,
395, 397, 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC
PT
6.eBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 212 of 2019147,148,294(b), 307, 323, 324,
326, 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC
PT
6.fBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 154 of 2019120(b), 294(b), 323, 325, 506(2)
of IPC
PT
6.gBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 240 of 201575 of TNCPT Act Con
6.hBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 161 of 2015294(b), 324, 506(2) of IPCAcq
6.iBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 324 of 2012379 of IPC Acq
6.jBaskar/A6 Arumuganeri 303 of 201275 TNCPT Act Con
6.kBaskar/A6 Thattarmadam140 of 2021294(b), 427, 448, 506(2), 109 of
IPC & 4 of TNPHW Act
PT
6.lBaskar/A6 Thattarmadam139 of 2021294(b0, 324, 325, 506(2) of IPCPT
6.mBaskar/A6 South P.S 446 of 2022341, 294(b), 307, 506(2) of IPCNTF
6.nBaskar/A6 SIPCOT 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/Sts
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of SC/St
Act,
PT
27/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
7 Muthuraj @
Muthupandi / A7
SIPCOT 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
8.aDinesh/A8 South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
PT
8.bDinesh/A8 SIPCOT 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
9.aRajesh @
Rajaeshwaran/A9
SIPCOT 319 of 2012394 of IPC PT
9.bRajesh @
Rajaeshwaran/A9
Sankarankovil
Town P.S,
370 of 2016147, 148, 149, 294(b), 341, 307,
387 of IPC
PT
9.cRajesh @
Rajaeshwaran/A9
Sankarankovil
P.S.
366 of 2016120(b), 147, 148, 149, 294(b),
302, 449, 506(ii) of IPC
Acq
9.dRajesh @
Rajaeshwaran/A9
Thisayanvial
P.S.
319 of 2018147, 201, 294(b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & 3 of
TNPPPDL Act,
PT
9.eRajesh @
Rajaeshwaran/A9
Pudukkottai 221 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 and
506(ii), 120.B, 34, 149, 114, 352,
109 of IPC
PT
9.fRajesh @
Rajaeshwaran/A9
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 2949b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC & 3(2)
(v) SC/St (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015
PT
9.gRajesh @
Rajaeshwaran/A9
SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
9.hRajesh @
Rajaeshwaran/A9
Poonamallee
P.S.
994 of 2024132 of BNS, 42 of Prisons Act @
8(c) 20 (b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act,
UI
10.aPeter @ Anthony
Peter,
Korampallam/A10
Thisayanvial
P.S.
319 of 2018147, 201, 294(b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & 3 of
TNPPPDL Act,
PT
10.bPeter @ Anthony
Peter,
Korampallam/A10
Sankarankovil
Town P.S.
370 of 2016147, 148, 264(b), 341, 307, 387
of IPC
PT
10.cPeter @ Anthony
Peter,
Korampallam/A10
South P.S 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
PT
28/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
10.dPeter @ Anthony
Peter,
Korampallam/A10
Palayamkottai
P.S
176 of 2020294(b), 506(i) of IPC Referred
10.ePeter @ Anthony
Peter,
Korampallam/A10
SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
11.aRamesh/A11 Pudukottai 239 of 2016341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPC Acq
11.bRamesh/A11 South P.S 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
PT
11.cRamesh/A11 South P.S. 730 of 2019341, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and
Section 3(1) ®, 3(1) (s) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act 2015
PT
11.dRamesh/A11 SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
12.aMurugesan/A12 South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
PT
12.bMurugesan/A12 SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
13.aLakshmanaperumal/A
13
SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
14.aNamonarayanan/A14Eral P.S. 2 of 2021147, 148, 294(b), 427, 448,
506(2), 109 & 4 of TNPHW Act,
PT
14.bNamonarayanan/A14Pudukkottai 260 of 2022294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) of IPCPT
14.cNamonarayanan/A14Pudukottai 40 of 2022294(b), 323, 341, 506(i) of IPCAcq
14.dNamonarayanan/A14Pudukkottai 314 of 2019294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPCPT
14.eNamonarayanan/A14Pudukkottai 147 of 2018294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPCReferred
14.fNamonarayanan/A14Pudukkottai 49 of 2017294(b), 307, 341, 506(2) of IPCPT
14.gNamonarayanan/A14Pudukkottai 352 of 201675 of TNCPT Act Con
14.hNamonarayanan/A14Pudukkottai 294 of 201575 of TNCPT Act Con
29/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
14.iNamonarayanan/A14SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
15Sutherson/A15 SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
14.List of Criminal Cases on 21 Accused in Thoothukudi South
P.S.Cr.No.533 of 2019(first murder case) :
Sl.
No
Name of the
accused
Police Station Crime No Offence under Section Remarks
1Rajesh/A1 Sipcot 319 of 2012394 of IPC PT
1.bRajesh/A1 Sankarankovil Town
Police Station
370 of 2016147, 148, 294(b), 341, 307 and
387 of IPC
PT
1.cRajesh/A1 Sankarankovil P.S366 of 2016120(b), 147, 148, 149, 294(b).
302, 449, 506(ii) of IPC
Acq
1.dRajesh/A1 Thisayanvial 319 of 2018147, 201, 2949b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & Section 3
of TNPPPDL Act,
PT
1.eRajesh/A1 Pudukkottai 221 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii), 120(b), 34, 149, 114,
352, 109 of IPC
PT
1.fRajesh/A1 South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
PT
1.gRajesh/A1 SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
1.hRajesh/A1 Poonamallee P.S. 994 of 2024132 of BNS, 42 of Prisons Act @
8(c) 20 (b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act,
UI
2.aPeter @
Anthony Peter,
Korampallam/
A2
Thisayanvial 319 of 2018147, 201, 2949b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & Section 3
of TNPPPDL Act,
PT
30/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
2.bPeter @
Anthony Peter,
Korampallam/
A2
Sankarankovil Town
Police Station
370 of 2016147, 148, 294(b), 341, 307 and
387 of IPC
PT
2.cPeter @
Anthony Peter,
Korampallam/
A2
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
2.dPeter @
Anthony Peter,
Korampallam/
A2
Palayamkottai P.S176 of 2020294(b), 506(i) of IPC Referred
2.ePeter @
Anthony Peter,
Korampallam/
A2
SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
3.aSankaramoorthy
/ A3
South P.S. 967 of 2011147, 148, 149, 120(b), 341,
294(b), 302 of IPC
Acq
3.bSankaramoorthy
/ A3
South P.S. 700 of 2012341, 294(b), 324, 307 of IPCNTF
3.cSankaramoorthy
/ A3
South P.S. 701 of 2012341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPC Acq
3.dSankaramoorthy
/ A3
Sipcot 384 of 20148(c) r/w 20(b)(II)(A) of
N.D.P.S.Act,
Referred
3.eSankaramoorthy
/ A3
South P.S. 261 of 2014341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPCNTF
3.fSankaramoorthy
/ A3
South P.S. 731 of 2014452, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC
& 4 of TNPHW Act,
Acq
3.gSankaramoorthy
/ A3
Kovilpatti West P.S.06 of 2016Girl Missing @ 366, 493 of IPC
& 5(1), 6 of POCSO Act,
Acq
3.hSankaramoorthy
/ A3
Central P.S. 755 of 2016294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPCPT
3.iSankaramoorthy
/ A3
South P.S. 139 of 2017294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPCPT
3.jSankaramoorthy
/ A3
Pudukkottai 152 of 2018341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPCPT
3.kSankaramoorthy
/ A3
Rathapuram 206 of 2018341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPCPT
3.lSankaramoorthy
/ A3
Thisayanvilai 319 of 2018147, 201, 294(b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & TNPPL
Act,
PT
3.mSankaramoorthy
/ A3
South P.S. 466 of 2019341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPCPT
31/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
3.nSankaramoorthy
/ A3
Sourth P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
4.aBoopesh Kannan
/ A4
South P.S. 967 of 2011147, 148, 149, 120(b), 341,
294(b), 302 of IPC
Acq
4.bBoopesh Kannan
/ A4
South P.S. 249 of 2013341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPC
4.cBoopesh Kannan
/ A4
Thalamuthunagar 396 of 2014399 of IPC
4.dBoopesh Kannan
/ A4
Kurumbur 396 of 2014399 of IPC
4.eBoopesh Kannan
/ A4
Thisayanvilai 319 of 2018147, 201, 294(b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & TNPPL
Act,
PT
4.fBoopesh Kannan
/ A4
Sourth P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
4.gBoopesh Kannan
/ A4
Rathapuram 206 of 2018341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPCPT
5.aMaruthavel @
Pappadai
South P.S 641 of 2015341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPCNTF
5.bMaruthavel @
Pappadai
South P.S. 1069 of 2015341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
5.cMaruthavel @
Pappadai
South P.S. 864 of 2016294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPCNTF
5.dMaruthavel @
Pappadai
South P.S. 1421 of 2016341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
5.eMaruthavel @
Pappadai
South P.S. 278 of 2019147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPCPT
5.fMaruthavel @
Pappadai
North P.S 169 of 20198(c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(B), 29(1) of
NDPS Act,
Acq
5.gMaruthavel @
Pappadai
Thattaparai P.S 23 of 2016294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
5.hMaruthavel @
Pappadai
SIPCOT 497 of 2018341, 323, 326, 506(ii) of IPC 3 of
TNPPDL Act,
PT
5.iMaruthavel @
Pappadai
SIPCOT 170 of 2019294(b), 506(ii) of IPC PT
5.jMaruthavel @
Pappadai
SIPCOT 171 of 2019294(b), 506(ii) of IPC & 3 of
TNPPDL Act,
NTF
5.kMaruthavel @
Pappadai
Pudukkottai 223 of 2017147, 294(b), 323, 326, 506(ii) of
IPC & 3 (1)(r), 3(S), 3(2)(V) of
SC/ST Act
PT
5.lMaruthavel @
Pappadai
Pudukkottai 184 of 2018341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPCPT
32/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
5.mMaruthavel @
Pappadai
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
6.aVicky @
Vigneswaran @
Vignesh Kumar /
A6
Sankarankovil 366 of 2016120(b), 147, 148, 149, 294(b)
302, 449, 506(ii) of IPC
Acq
6.bVicky @
Vigneswaran @
Vignesh Kumar /
A6
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
7.aSathyaraj,
Kuliyankarisal /
A7
Pudukkottai 366 of 2014147, 294 (b), 323, 506(ii) of IPCUI
7.bSathyaraj,
Kuliyankarisal /
A7
Pudukkottai 258 of 2016294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC PT
7.cSathyaraj,
Kuliyankarisal /
A7
Pudukkottai 145 of 2017147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
7.dSathyaraj,
Kuliyankarisal /
A7
Pudukkottai 117 of 20194(A), IES Act, 294 (b), 307,
506(ii) of IPC
UI
7.eSathyaraj,
Kuliyankarisal /
A7
Sawerpuram 82 of 2018294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPCPT
7.fSathyaraj,
Kuliyankarisal /
A7
Sawerpuram 22 of 2019291 of IPC Con
7.gSathyaraj,
Kuliyankarisal /
A7
Thisayanvilai 319 of 2018147, 201, 294(b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & TNPPL
Act,
PT
7.hSathyaraj,
Kuliyankarisal /
A7
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
8.aBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
South P.S. 540 of 2017294(b), 324 of IPC NTF
8.bBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
South P.S. 805 of 2017294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPCPT
33/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
8.cBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
South P.S. 321 of 2018294(b), 307, 353, 506(ii) of IPCReferred
8.dBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
South P.S. 278 of 2019147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC
& 4 of TNPHW Act
PT
8.eBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
Pudukkottai 299 of 2017147, 294(b), 307 of IPC NTF
8.fBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
Pudukkottai 357 of 20188(c) r/w 20 (b) (II) (B) of NDPS
Act
PT
8.gBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
Thisayanvilai 319 of 2018147, 201, 294(b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & 3 TNPPL
Act,
PT
8.hBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)()0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
8.iBala @
Balasubramaniy
an
K.V.K.Nagar /
A8
Tirunelveli City
Perumalpuram
86 of 2024294(b), 307, 324, 506(2) of IPC
45(2) of Prisons Act,
UI
9.aVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
South P.S. 967 of 2011147, 148, 149, 120(B), 341,
294(b), 302 of IPC
Acq
9.bVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
South P.S 933 of 2016302 of IPC @ 109, 147, 148,
294(b), 341, 302 of IPC
Acq
9.cVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
South P.S. 864 of 2016294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPCNTF
9.dVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
South P.S. 527 of 2016294(B), 341, 307, 506(ii) of IPC
3 of TNPPDL Act
NTF
9.eVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
South P.S. 441 of 2014294(b), 341, 387, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
9.fVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
North P.S. 300 of 2018294(b), 341, 307, 387, 506(ii) of
IPC
PT
9.gVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
North P.S. 535 of 2017147, 294(b), 342, 353, 307 of
IPC & 3 of TNPPDL Act,
Acq
34/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
9.hVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
North P.S. 571 of 2012294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC @
302, 34 of IPC
PT
9.iVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
North P.S. 483 of 2015294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPC
9.jVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
Central P.S. 755 of 2016294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPCPT
9.kVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
SIPCOT 497 of 2018323, 326, 34, 341, 506(ii) of IPC
& 3 of TNPPDL Act,
NTF
9.lVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v0 SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
9.mVel Sankar,
Anna Nagar / A9
Arumuganeri 17 of 2019147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324,
506(2) of IPC @ 147, 148, 149,
294(b), 323, 324, 325 and 506(2)
of IPC
PT
10.Balasubramaniy
an s/o Pon
Murugan,
Mullakadu / A10
Pudukkottai 145 of 2017147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC Acq
10.bBalasubramaniy
an s/o Pon
Murugan,
Mullakadu / A10
Sankarankovil 366 of 2016120(b), 147, 148, 149, 294(b),
302, 449 and 506(ii) of IPC
Acq
10.cBalasubramaniy
an s/o Pon
Murugan,
Mullakadu / A10
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
11.aKanthavel,
Masilamanipura
m, Sawerpuram /
A11
Sawerpuram 111 of 2018294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
11.bKanthavel,
Masilamanipura
m, Sawerpuram /
A11
Sawerpuram 121 of 2017294(b), 323, 326, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
11.cKanthavel,
Masilamanipura
m, Sawerpuram /
A11
Pudukkottai 311 of 2018294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPCPT
11.dKanthavel,
Masilamanipura
m, Sawerpuram /
A11
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
12.Kanagaraj @
Rasukutti / A12
South P.S. 831 of 2016294(b), 307, 506(ii) of IPC & 3
of TNPPDL Act
NTF
12.bKanagaraj @
Rasukutti / A12
South P.S. 506 of 2016294(b), 341, 387, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
35/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
12.cKanagaraj @
Rasukutti / A12
South P.S. 641 of 2016294(b), 341, 307, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
12.dKanagaraj @
Rasukutti / A12
North P.S 169 of 20198(c) r/w 20(b) (II)(B), 29(I) of
NDPS Act
Acq
12.eKanagaraj @
Rasukutti / A12
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
12.fKanagaraj @
Rasukutti / A12
SIPCOT 170 of 2019294(B), 506(ii) of IPC PT
12.gKanagaraj @
Rasukutti / A12
Pudukkottai 184 of 2018147, 148, 294(b), 324, 341,
506(2) of IPC @ 294(b), 324,
341, 506(2) of IPC
PT
12.hKanagaraj @
Rasukutti / A12
Pudukkottai 223 of 2017147, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) of
IPC 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) @
147, 294(b), 323, 326, 506(2) of
IPC 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
PT
13.aVickey @
Vignesh,
Korampallam /
A13
Pudukkottai 145 of 2017147, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
13.bVickey @
Vignesh,
Korampallam /
A13
Sawerpuram 22 of 2019291 of Ipc Con
13.cVickey @
Vignesh,
Korampallam /
A13
SIPCOT 116 of 2018107, 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 324,
506(ii) of IPC
PT
13.dVickey @
Vignesh,
Korampallam /
A13
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
14.aSelvakumar /
A14
Thisayanvilai 319 of 2018147, 201, 294(b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & 3 TNPPL
Act,
PT
14.bSelvakumar /
A14
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
15.aDinesh / A15South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
15.bDinesh / A15SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
36/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
16.aThangam,
TNHB Colony,
thoothukudi /
A16
SIPCOT P.S 497 of 2018341, 323, 326 and 506(ii) of IPV
& 3 of TNPPDL Act
NTF
16.bThangam,
TNHB Colony,
thoothukudi /
A16
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
17.Ponsaravana
Perumal Bala /
A17
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
18.aJesubalan @
Kurumbur Bala
Sankarankovil 366 of 2016120(b),147, 148, 149, 294(b),
302, 449, 506(ii) of IPC
Acq
18.bJesubalan @
Kurumbur Bala
Sankarankovil 370 of 2016147, 148, 294(b), 307, 341, 387
of IPC
PT
18.cJesubalan @
Kurumbur Bala
Muthiahpuram 357 of 2018294(b), 323, 324, 341s, 448 and
506(ii) of IPC
Con
18.dJesubalan @
Kurumbur Bala
Pavoor Chathiram 461 of 2017294(B), 397, 506(ii) of IPCNTF
18.eJesubalan @
Kurumbur Bala
Thisayanvilai 319 of 2018147, 201, 294(b), 302, 323, 364,
449, 506(ii) of IPC & 3 TNPPL
Act,
PT
18.fJesubalan @
Kurumbur Bala
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
18.gJesubalan @
Kurumbur Bala
Sawyerpuram 82 of 2018294(b), 324, 506(2) of IPCPT
19.aRamesh / A19Pudukkottai 239 of 2016341, 294(b), 387, 506(ii) of IPCAcq
19.bRamesh / A19South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
19.cRamesh / A19South P.S 730 of 2019341, 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and
3(1) ®, 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
PT
19.dRamesh / A19SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
20.aPeriyadurai
Aniyabaranallur
/ A20
Pudukkottai 240 of 2019379 of IPC NTF
37/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
20.bPeriyadurai
Aniyabaranallur
/ A20
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
21.aMurugesan /
A21
South P.S. 533 of 2019147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302,
506(ii) r/w 34, 109 of IPC and
3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015
P.T
21.bMurugesan /
A21
SIPCOT P.S 48 of 2023147, 148, 449, 302, 109, 120(B),
212 of IPC & 3(2)(v) SC/STs
(POA) Act, @ 147, 148, 149,
109, 120B, 212, 449, 302, 34 of
IPC & 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi) of
SC/STAct,
PT
15.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and the learned counsel appearing for
the defacto complainant and perused the materials available on record and the
precedents relied and perused the reports submitted by the learned Special
Judge, the typed set of papers produced by the accused, as well as the materials
placed by the defacto complainant and the prosecution along with counter
affidavits and additional counter affidavits and impugned bail dismissal orders.
16.The question for consideration in these criminal appeals is whether
the appellants are justified in preferring successive bail applications on the
ground of prolonged incarceration pending completion of trial?
38/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
17.Discussion on facts:
For the sake of brevity and for better appreciation of the facts, this Court
reiterates the prosecution case as already set out in the earlier appeal in Crl.A.
(MD).No.494 of 2023, which need not be reproduced in detail herein.
17.1.According to the prosecution, the deceased, Advocate
P.K.Muthukumar, and the defacto complainant were opposing the bail
applications of the accused involved in the earlier murder case of their brother,
P.K.Shivakumar (Crime No.533 of 2019). Due to this, the accused allegedly
conspired to eliminate P.K.Muthukumar. It is alleged that the accused, while in
jail, hatched a conspiracy with the present appellant and other accused and
murdered the deceased on 22.02.2023 at Thoothukudi. Based on the complaint,
a case was registered in Crime No.48 of 2023 for offences under various
provisions of IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After
investigation, a final report was filed against 15 accused. The appellant’s bail
application was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned orders, which is
now challenged before this Court.
18.Discussion on the principles:
The learned counsel appearing for the accused, relying on various
39/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Aadya Prasad Tiwari
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another in Crl.A.No.195 of 2026 (ii)In the case
of Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2026 INSC 12
(iii)In the case of Dheeraj Wadhawan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 1212(iv)In the case of Karan Talwar vs. The
State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2024 INSC 1012(v)In the case of Chitan
Rajubhai Panseriya vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in S.L.P.(Crl.).No.
439 of 2026(vi)In the case of Gopinath vs. The State in Crl.A.No.1177 of
2025(vii)In the case of Kalaiselvan vs. The State in Crl.A.No.1888 of 2025
would contend that they are entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of
prolonged incarceration. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to be
protracted, as the examination of more than 90 witnesses is required, and there
is no likelihood of its early disposal. Hence, placing reliance on the said
judgment, the accused seek grant of bail.
18.1.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto
complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the
present case stands on a different footing, and the judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the accused are not applicable to the facts of this case. It is
submitted that there has been deliberate obstruction to the progress of the trial
at the instance of the accused, and that they have not cooperated for the
40/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
expeditious conclusion of the trial despite specific directions issued by this
Court. It is further contended that there is a presistent threat to the prosecution
witnesses. The gravity of the offence is also emphasized, particularly in view of
the fact of two murder cases concerning members of the same family, including
the brutal killing of one Johnson @ Sargunam in a public place, namely the
court premises and a bazaar area, which has significant bearing on the present
case. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the bail application deserves to
be dismissed, especially in the absence of any change in circumstances since
the earlier dismissal by this Court, and in view of the persistent threat posed to
the witnesses.
18.2.This Court has to balance both competing considerations. While
safeguarding the personal liberty of the accused against undue incarceration,
this Court is equally bound to ensure the protection of the witnesses and the
fairness of the trial. To find out a solution to the complex problem and to meet
out the balance between two situations, namely, the prolonged incarceration of
the accused without conclusion of the trial, and the persistent threat to the
witnesses as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused, this Court
recapitulates the following principles relating to the grant of bail laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
41/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
18.3.In cases involving heinous offences, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that, while dealing with successive bail applications, courts must refrain
from considering irrelevant factors and are required to consider the material
facts on record, apply their judicial mind to the facts of the case, and duly
account for the gravity of the offence, witnesses protection, Criminal
antecedents of the accused and change of circumstances and in these aspects, it
is relevant to extract the following Hon’ble three member bench of Supreme
Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in
(2005) 2 SCC 42
18.It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken
away except in accordance with the procedure established by
law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However,
Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates
deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law.
Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of
offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in
custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on
bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be
questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is
authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable
offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima
facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons
to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case
42/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact
situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose
application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not
precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail
if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the
circumstances then prevailing require that such persons be
released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being
rejected, the courts can do so.
19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous
principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding,
still the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline
having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our
country. The findings of a higher court or a coordinate Bench
must receive serious consideration at the hands of the court
entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same
had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give
due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or
higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the
issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted
to be reagitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to
a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice
and may lead to forum hunting.
20.The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly,
are binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in
bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the
fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore,
even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail
43/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
application in cases where earlier applications have been
rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact
situation or in law which requires the earlier view being
interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete.
This is the limited area in which an accused who has been
denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application.
Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned
counsel for the accused that in view of the guarantee conferred
on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is open to the
aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a
ground already rejected by the courts earlier, including the Apex
Court of the country.
18.4.In the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Bahu
reported in 2012 9 SCC 446 the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that although
period of custody is relevant, the Court must weigh the totality of
circumstances, namely, nature of the crime and criminal antecedents of the
accused and the relevant paragraph is as follows:
32. We may usefully state that when the citizens are
scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in
an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of
the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy.
There should have been proper analysis of the criminal
antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is
subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The
44/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be
enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing
conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that
period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the
totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also
to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective
cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in
juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said
parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in
the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the
restriction of liberty of the accused.
18.5.In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported
in (2005) 2 SCC 42, the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has
held that nearly the accused has undergone three years period of incarceration
and the trial is not likely to be concluded it would not enure to the accused to
enlarge him on bail and the relevant paragraph is as follows:
“….the High Court has given the period of incarceration
already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial
concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the
accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged
of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death
penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the
accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years
in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being
45/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the
period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the
appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe
and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the
accused during the period he was on bail.”
18.6.In the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1702 the Hon'ble Supreme court elaborately considered
almost all principles after considering the earlier precedents and cancelled the
bail granted by the Court below holding that period of incarceration by itself
would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail and more particularly,
when the witnesses are under continuous threat perception and the offences
are more heinous. The seriousness and heinous nature of the alleged offence is
a significant factor for consideration, while evaluating a plea for grant of bail.
18.7.This Court carefully considered the aforesaid precedents and
perused the relevant records in order to examine the plea raised by the learned
counsel appearing for the accused that the trial had been prolonged without any
fault on the part of the accused. From a perusal of the records, the reports
submitted by the learned Trial Judge to this Court during the course of the
hearing, and the materials placed before this Court, it is evident that the
accused, namely the appellant in the connected appeal, had earlier preferred a
46/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
bail appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 494 of 2023.
19.This Court, after elaborate consideration of the materials available on
record and taking into account the gravity of the allegations, the involvement of
hired killers, the vulnerability of the witnesses, the continuous threats extended
to the witnesses, and the stringent provisions under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, dismissed the bail petition and
directed the learned Trial Judge to conduct the trial within the jail premises in
order to ensure the safety and security of the witnesses. The said order was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition
in SLP (Criminal) No. 422 of 2025, which was also dismissed, thereby
confirming the directions issued by this Court.
20.Pursuant to the said directions, the learned Trial Judge took efforts to
proceed with the trial. However, two learned Judges, who dealt with the case at
different stages, submitted reports before this Court expressing their difficulties
in conducting the proceedings. One of the learned Judges, who had initially
dealt with the matter, expressed difficulty in proceeding further with the trial on
account of the repeated conduct of the accused in filing petition after petition,
thereby obstructing the progress of the case. The learned counsel appearing on
47/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
behalf of the accused had also exhibited an indifferent attitude towards the
learned Trial Judge during the course of the proceedings.
21.Subsequently, another learned Judge also expressed difficulty in
proceeding with the matter, stating that even notices issued to the accused were
refused and that charges themselves could not be framed on account of the total
lack of cooperation on the part of the accused. Consequently, the learned Trial
Judge reported that the case had not progressed even beyond the stage of
framing of charges.
22.In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court perused the reports
submitted by the learned Trial Judges, as well as the counter affidavits filed by
the de facto complainant and the prosecution, wherein it was specifically stated
that more than 150 interlocutory applications had been filed by the accused,
either seeking similar reliefs under different nomenclatures or raising repetitive
grounds in different forms. It was only after the dismissal of such petitions that
the matter could be moved to the next stage of the proceedings. Even thereafter,
fresh petitions continued to be filed, thereby repeatedly stalling the progress of
the trial.
48/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
23.In the said circumstances, this Court intervened and issued directions
for expeditious conduct of the trial. At that stage, charges alone had been
framed and the case was thereafter posted for trial.
24.At this stage, there was continuous intimidation and threatening of
witnesses. Even though the trial was conducted within the jail premises, the
witnesses were required to travel from Tuticorin District to the prison premises
situated in Tirunelveli District, covering a considerable distance, during which
period they were allegedly subjected to repeated threats from various sources
connected with the accused.
25.The materials placed before this Court further reveal that such threats
to witnesses were not confined to the present case alone. Even prior to the
murder involved in the present case, the deceased himself had allegedly faced
threats during the pendency of the earlier murder case relating to the murder of
his brother, in respect of which an FIR had been registered, investigation
completed, and final report filed regarding witness intimidation, and the trial
was pending in S.C. No.25 of 2023.
49/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
26.Subsequent to the murder of the deceased in the present case, the de
facto complainant and other prosecution witnesses also allegedly faced
continuous threats. Recently, two witnesses turned hostile, and threats were
allegedly proliferated to the remaining witnesses as well. Consequently, another
FIR came to be registered in Tirunelveli District containing specific allegations
regarding intimidation of witnesses. In connection with the said FIR, one of the
accused persons has been arrested and the investigation is presently in progress.
27.Further, the de facto complainant also filed a writ petition before this
Court seeking police protection on account of life threats. This Court passed
appropriate orders in the said writ petition. In view of the above circumstances,
this Court is satisfied that continuous threats to the witnesses still persist.
Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the de facto
complainant have rightly enumerated the circumstances relating to intimidation
and threats faced by the witnesses in the present case.
28.This Court, from the reports filed by the investigating agency, the
counter affidavit and rejoinder filed by the de facto complainant, the records
relating to the FIR registered for witness intimidation, the final report filed in
the earlier case concerning threats to witnesses, and the orders passed by this
50/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Court granting police protection to the de facto complainant and his family
members, clearly finds that there exists a genuine and substantial threats to the
witnesses. The said apprehension also stands fortified by the fact that two
material witnesses have already turned hostile.
29.Apart from that, the learned Special Public Prosecutor also filed a
petition before the learned Trial Judge seeking stay of the trial proceedings for
a limited period after the hostility of the two witnesses and upon the
registration of the FIR before the Tirunelveli police authorities regarding
witness intimidation. Subsequently, one of the accused in the said FIR was
arrested, and thereafter the trial proceedings recommenced.
30.In view of all the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
consider the plea of the accused seeking bail on the ground of prolonged
incarceration. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the
safety and lives of the witnesses assume greater significance than the continued
incarceration of the accused in prison.
31.This Court also takes into consideration the criminal antecedents of
the accused in both cases, which have their own significance in considering the
51/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
request for bail. Further, the prosecution has now placed before this Court the
detailed hearing schedule and has also undertaken to complete the trial within a
period of two months. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
32.This Court also finds that there is no change in circumstances, except
the further period of incarceration. On the contrary, the witnesses continue to
remain under constant threat, and the intensity of intimidation appears to have
increased subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier bail petition in the
connected case.
33.This Court had already recorded its following observations in the
earlier order in Crl.A.(MD).No.494 of 2023 dated 10.11.2023, which was
subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Crl).No.422
of 2025:
vdJ mz;zd; gLnfhiyf;FNkw;gb uNk\; KUNfrd;
kw;Wk; mth;fspd; ikj;Jduhd nghpaJiu MfpNahh;fs;
kw;Wk; Njd;uh[; ke;jpuk; Jz;Ljypd; NghpNy vdJ mz;zd;
gp.Nf.Kj;Jf;Fkhh; nfhiy nra;ag;gl;lhh;. Nkw;gb egh;fshy;
ehDk; vd; FLk;gj;jpdUk; kpFe;j caph; mr;rj;jpy; cs;Nshk;.
Nkw;gb egh;fspd; kPJ tof;F gjpT nra;J chpa eltbf;if
vLf;FkhW Nfl;Lf;nfhs;fpNwd;.
52/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
34.The said threatening made to the defacto complainant and the
witnesses has further aggravated and intensified. Consequently, the de facto
complainant filed an application before this Court seeking police protection for
the family members, and this Court passed appropriate order in Crl.O.P.
(MD).No.5390 of 2026, which reads as follows:
The present petition has been filed seeking a
direction to the respondents to provide adequate police
protection for the family members of the petitioner and the
witnesses by considering the petitioner's representation dated
01.03.2026.
2.According to the petitioner, he is a witness in S.C.Nos.
62 and 63 of 2020 and S.C.No.25 of 2023. He further submits
that he has already been granted police protection. According to
him, his wife and son have not been provided with police
protection and he apprehends a danger to their life. Therefore,
the present petition has been filed.
3.According to the learned Government
Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondents, the third
respondent herein by his proceedings dated 04.03.2026 has
already granted police protection to the wife and son of the
petitioner herein. The relevant portion of the said proceedings is
extracted as follows:
“In pursuance of the orders first read above, police
53/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
protection has been extended to the petitioner,
Thiru.P.K.Ramkumar, with two armed Personal Security
Officers in two shifts on a round-the-clock basis. In addition, a
residential guard comprising one Sub-Inspector of Police and
two other police personnel in two shifts is being provided at the
petitioner's residence.
Considering the nature of the cases and the request made
by Thiru.P.K.Ramkumar under the Witness Protection Scheme,
2018, as 1st read above, it is hereby ordered that round-the
clock police protection shall be provided to the family members
of the petitioner (his wife and child) by deploying one armed
female police personnel in two shifts, until further orders.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve,
Thoothukudi, is directed to coordinate with the Deputy
Superintendents of Police, Thoothukudi Town and Rural Sub
Divisions and ensure deployment of adequate Armed Reserve
Personnel, with one female police personnel, for effective
protection.”
4.In view of the above said facts, the prayer sought for by
the petitioner has already been acceded to by the third
respondent herein. In such circumstances, no further order is
called for. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands
disposed of.
54/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
35.Apart from the above, the witnesses also continue to remain under
persistent threat and intimidation.
36.Therefore, this Court finds that there is absolutely no change in
circumstances warranting reconsideration of the bail plea. In the absence of any
substantial change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
present bail application.
37.The Hon’ble three judges bench of Apex Court in the case of Neeru
Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another in 2014 16 SCC 508 observed as
follows:
“The issue that is presented before us is whether this
Court can annual the order passed by the High Court and curtail
the liberty of the second respondent? We are not oblivious of the
fact that liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is
founded on the bedrock of the constitutional right and
accentuated further on the human rights. In fact, some regard it
as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or
barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries
have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of”
emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized
society. It is cardinal value on which the civilization rests. It
cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation
55/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
of liberty of a person has enormous impact of his mind as well as
body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of
law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant
one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. Society by its
collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the
liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual
becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order.
Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent
which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society
expects responsibility and accountability from its members, and
it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a
cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to
create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impressible.
Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious
manner ushering in disordering things which the society
disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that
stage, the court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct
obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has
to be guided by the established parameters of law.”
38.Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1690
24.Furthermore, this Court cannot lose sight of the
influence an accused wields in society while considering the
grant of bail, as was expounded by this Court inBhagwan
Singh v. Dilip Kumar. Undoubtedly, the Accused is a
56/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
celebrated wrestler and an Olympian, who has represented the
nation at the international level. It cannot be doubted that he
carries societal impact. In such circumstances, it cannot be
said that he would have no domineering influence over
witnesses or delay the proceedings of trial. Needless to add
that allegations of pressurizing the witnesses have been made,
before the order granting bail was passed. Certain witnesses
had, in writing lodged complaints, apprehending threat to their
lives at the behest of the Accused.
Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497
35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an
individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while
considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of
the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the
facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the
accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature
but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as
to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While
considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie
conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at
after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on
record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of
the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if
any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a
conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.
36.... a balance would have to be struck between the nature of
57/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
the allegations made against the accused; severity of the
punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable
doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused;
tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the
prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima
facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against
the accused.
39.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs
Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 has stated as follows,
“it is well settled that, among other circumstances, the
facts to be borne in mind while considering an application for
bail are:
(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail;
(v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of
the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
58/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
of bail.”
The petitioner does not meet out any one of the factors set
out by the Hon’ble Apex Court for considering his Bail
Application.
40.Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1690
24.Furthermore, this Court cannot lose sight of the
influence an accused wields in society while considering the
grant of bail, as was expounded by this Court inBhagwan
Singh v. Dilip Kumar. Undoubtedly, the Accused is a
celebrated wrestler and an Olympian, who has represented the
nation at the international level. It cannot be doubted that he
carries societal impact. In such circumstances, it cannot be
said that he would have no domineering influence over
witnesses or delay the proceedings of trial. Needless to add
that allegations of pressurizing the witnesses have been made,
before the order granting bail was passed. Certain witnesses
had, in writing lodged complaints, apprehending threat to their
lives at the behest of the Accused.
Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497
35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an
individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while
considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of
the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the
facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the
59/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature
but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as
to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While
considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie
conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at
after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on
record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of
the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if
any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a
conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.
36.... a balance would have to be struck between the nature of
the allegations made against the accused; severity of the
punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable
doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused;
tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the
prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima
facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge against
the accused.
41.Therefore, it is relevant to extract following material finding of
learned trial judge:
Impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2025, which
was impugned in the Crl.A.(MD).No.48 of 2026
Impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.170 of 2025 Which
was impugned in the Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025
60/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Based on the above detailed discussion, considering
the nature and gravity of offences involved which are
serious in view of the brutal two murders, materials
available against the petitioner/accused No.6,
objections raised on the prosecution side & the defacto
complainant, the serious possibility of threat existing
to the witnesses in both the Sessions Cases, the stage
of the Sessions Cases being around framing of charges,
delay so far caused in the trial proceedings due to
filing of various miscellaneous petitions, directions of
the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to
expeditiously dispose the present Sessions Case No.
25/2023 along with the connected Sessions Case No.
62/2020, 63/2020, Pre Trial Meeting conducted as per
the directions of the Hon’ble High Court even in which
the defence side has not come forward to agree for a
time schedule to conclude trial in the Sessions Cases,
previous criminal antecedents of 13 cases as against
the petitioner/accused No.6, this court is of the view
that, the petitioner/accused No.6 has not made out a
case for granting the discretionary relief of bail to him
in this case and hence it is hereby decided that, the
present petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be
dismissed. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Based on the above detailed discussion, considering
the nature and gravity of offences involved which are
serious in view of the brutal two murders, materials
available against the petitioner/accused No.7,
objections raised on the prosecution side & the defacto
complainant, the serious possibility of threat existing
to the witnesses in both the Sessions Cases, the stage
of the Sessions Cases being around framing of charges,
delay so far caused in the trial proceedings due to
filing of various miscellaneous petitions, directions of
the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to
expeditiously dispose the present Sessions Case No.
25/2023 along with the connected Sessions Case No.
62/2020, 63/2020, Pre Trial Meeting conducted as per
the directions of the Hon’ble High Court even in which
the defence side has not come forward to agree for a
time schedule to conclude trial in the Sessions Cases,
this court is of the view that, the petitioner/accused
No.7 has not made out a case for granting the
discretionary relief of bail to him in this case and
hence it is hereby decided that, the present petition is
devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. In the
result, this petition is hereby dismissed.
41.1.Finding of the learned trial Judge in the impugned order in
Crl.M.P.No.1196 of 2024 Which was impugned in the Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of
2025
A reading of the series of events culled out by me from the
submissions of the prosecution, defacto complainant and the
petitioner will throw light upon the various persons involved in
heinous offences that include Section 302 of IPC. Serial killing
resulting in imbalance to the cordial atmosphere prevailing in
the society, thereby hampering the day-to-day life of the people,
is a menace to the ordinary life of the people. At any cost, the
person who is involved in the crime even remotely cannot have
the benign gesture of the court. Extending the judicial arm to the
petitioner seeking bail should not perpetrate the calamitous
atmosphere which is already surcharged. The killing of
61/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Aathipalam has resulted in uncontrollable violence, including
the death of Kannan @ Mohammed Khalith, P.K Shivakumar
and P.K Muthukumar. The incidences that cover the death of all
the above referred 3 persons span over a period of 9 years. The
death of Aathipalam resulted in the agitation that saw the killing
of the above referred Kannan @ Mohammed Khalith,
P.K.Shivakumar and P.K Muthukumar. The defacto complainant
is the sole surviving brother of the brothers who succumbed to
the retaliatory violence that was unleashed upon the society.
Enlarging the accused persons on bail has to be within the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2004(7)
SCC 525(Chaman Lal Vs State of Uttarpradesh). The tests laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case are:
(i) Nature of the accusation and severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction and nature of the
supporting evidence.
(ii) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness
or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(iii) Prima satisfaction of Court in support of the charge.
The defacto complainant would submit that there is a
threat to his life in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail. Such
an apprehension cannot be brushed aside lightly. A life, once
gone, cannot be re-injected and it is an irreversible process.
Such a threat to the life cannot be taken in a lighter vein. The
enlargement of the petitioner on bail would see, in all
probability, the recurrence of a fresh wave of violence. It cannot
62/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
be permitted. Hence I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner/A15. Resultantly, this bail petition is dismissed.
42.Therefore, the learned trial judge has considered the seriousness of the
offence, threatening of the witnesses and conduct of the accused in not co-
operating the completion of the trial within the time framed by this Court in
Crl.A.(MD).No.494 of 2023 which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.L.P.(Crl).No.422 of 2025 and also the previous antecedents of the
various accused and dismissed the bail application filed second time. From the
records, it is clear that the accused did not show any inclination to complete the
trial within the time frame issued by this Court and filed petition after petition
to protract the trial and also simultaneously threatening to the witnesses
including the defacto complainant's family members. Therefore, this Court
finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned order of the learned trial Judge
in dismissing the bail petitions.
43.Discussion on delay in completion of trial:
Earlier, Accused No.15 had filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.
(MD).No.494 of 2023 arising out of the same Crime No.48 of 2023. This Court,
after an elaborate consideration of the materials placed on record, took into
account the gravity of the allegations, the involvement of hired assailants, the
63/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
vulnerability of the witnesses, and the stringent provisions under the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Upon such
consideration, this Court, by order dated 11.10.2023, dismissed the bail petition
and directed the trial court to conduct the trial within the jail premises in order
to ensure the safety of the witnesses. The said order was subsequently
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave
Petition in S.L.P.(Crl).No.422 of 2025 which came to be dismissed.
43.1.Thereafter, the trial could not be commenced owing to the filing of
numerous discharge petitions and other miscellaneous petitions by the accused
persons, running to more than 150 in number. In view of the same, the learned
trial Judge was unable to proceed with the trial.
43.2.In the earlier order, this Court had directed the trial court to
complete the trial within a period of three months. However, the said direction
could not be complied with and the trial has not been completed. Hence, the
present bail application has been filed by the appellants contending that, despite
the direction issued by this Court, the trial has not commenced and there has
been no substantial progress in the case. According to the appellants, they have
been continuously confined in prison without trial, which amounts to prolonged
64/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
pre-trial incarceration. It is further submitted that a large number of witnesses
have been cited in the final report and that the examination of such witnesses
would take considerable time. Therefore, it is contended that their right to
speedy trial has been seriously infringed. On the said grounds, the appellants
seek enlargement on bail and have also relied upon certain judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of their contention.
44.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the present case is an exceptional one involving a series of murders. It is
submitted that the first murder was committed opposite the court premises
when one of the brothers of the deceased was returning after attending court
proceedings. The said murder was allegedly carried out by hired assailants.
Subsequently, the present deceased and another brother, who is the second
respondent herein, had been persistently intervening in the bail petitions filed
by the accused persons and had been actively pursuing the case. Infuriated by
the same, the accused persons are alleged to have conspired and committed the
murder of the present deceased in a brutal manner in his pawn shop situated in
the bazaar area, again by engaging another group of hired assailants. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the witnesses are
still under fear and that, in the event the accused are released on bail, there is a
65/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
serious likelihood of witness intimidation and tampering with evidence, which
would seriously hamper the conduct of the trial. It was also contended that the
delay in the trial is attributable solely to the accused persons, as they have filed
numerous petitions before the trial court, thereby preventing the court from
proceeding with the trial. It is further submitted that the accused had even
refused to receive the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and had filed more than 150 miscellaneous petitions, which
effectively stalled the progress of the case. Apart from the above, it was also
submitted that threats had been issued even to the Special Public Prosecutor
appointed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and consequently
another Public Prosecutor had to be appointed. In view of the above
circumstances, it is contended that the situation remains unsafe for the
witnesses and even for the prosecuting agency, and therefore it would neither
be advisable nor permissible to grant bail to the appellants. The learned counsel
appearing for the de facto complainant also reiterated the submissions made by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He specifically submitted that the
witnesses continue to face serious threats and, therefore, the bail petition
deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon
the number of precedents .
66/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
45.At this stage, this Court called for a report from the learned Trial
Judge. Two Presiding Officers submitted their respective reports. One of the
learned Judges, who had earlier dealt with the petitions, expressed difficulty in
proceeding with the trial, stating that the counsel appearing for the accused had
caused hindrance to the conduct of the proceedings by repeatedly filing
petitions and had also made threatening remarks even against the Presiding
Officer. The subsequent Presiding Officer also expressed difficulty in
conducting the trial and reported that there was lack of cooperation on the part
of the accused for the completion of the proceedings. It was further stated that
the case had not progressed even to the stage of framing of charges. In the said
circumstances, this Court perused the orders passed by the Trial Court
dismissing 150 petitions filed as well as the other similar petitions. It is seen
that several petitions with similar prayers had been filed one after another,
despite earlier dismissals by the learned Trial Judge.
46. In view of the above circumstances, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants/accused that they have not caused any hindrance to
the conduct of the trial cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the materials on
record indicate that the accused had deliberately avoided the commencement of
the trial. Ultimately, only after the intervention of this Court were the charges
67/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
framed and the case posted for trial.
47.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the witnesses
are still under threat and that earlier two murders had allegedly been committed
by engaging hired assailants. This Court had also obtained a report Intelligence
Wing indicating the existence of threats to the witnesses. In view of the above
circumstances, the request of the petitioners to grant bail on the ground of delay
in the conclusion of the trial cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to contend
that prolonged incarceration should be considered while granting bail.
However, on perusal of the relevant paragraph of the said judgment, it is clear
that mere incarceration, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant bail in every case.
The manner of the attack and the earlier incidents of violence alleged in the
case are also relevant considerations. This Court therefore finds that, in the
present circumstances, the bail cannot be granted at this stage. The learned
counsel appearing for one of the appellants submitted that the allegation against
him is only that of conspiracy and that he is stated to have assisted another
accused by providing financial support. It was further submitted that he is an
engineering graduate and that he has no previous criminal antecedents.
However, this aspect had already been considered by this Court while
68/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2023. In the present case, the role of the
conspirator assumes significance, as the prosecution alleges that the murder
was committed with the object of preventing the defacto complainant from
pursuing proceedings in the both murder cases. On one hand, the accused
contended that their right to a speedy trial had been continuously infringed due
to the non-completion of the trial within the time frame fixed by this Court. On
the other hand, the prosecution as well as the de facto complainant submitted
that the delay in completion of the trial was solely attributable to the intentional
conduct of the accused themselves.
48.Discussion on Threat to Witnesses and Its Impact on Bail
Consideration
This Court is called upon to consider the plea for bail in a case where the
issue of witness intimidation assumes central significance. At the outset, it is to
be noted that the deceased in the present case was himself the prime witness in
an earlier murder case. In the said earlier case, the deceased had actively
intervened in the bail proceedings initiated by the accused therein and had
specifically apprised the Court of the threats faced by witnesses, necessitating
protection measures. Notwithstanding such intervention and the grant of police
protection, a conspiracy was allegedly hatched to eliminate him, culminating in
69/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
his murder in a public bazaar, which incident was witnessed, inter alia, by
police personnel.
48.1.The sequence of events prima facie establishes a pattern of
systematic intimidation and elimination of witnesses, striking at the very root of
the criminal justice process.
48.2.This Court, in earlier proceedings, had undertaken an elaborate
consideration of the issue of witness intimidation and, taking note of the
antecedents of the accused and the seriousness of the allegations, rejected the
bail applications with specific findings regarding the real and subsisting threat
to witnesses.
48.3.Subsequent to the said order, it is evident that the trial did not
commence promptly, attributable in part to the conduct of the accused, who
engaged in dilatory tactics, including repeated interventions through counsel. It
is pertinent to note that even statutory compliance, such as receipt of copies
under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was initially resisted by
the accused, necessitating intervention by this Court to ensure service and
progression to the stage of framing of charges.
48.4.Upon commencement of trial, several witnesses have been
examined. However, during the course of such examination, instances of
intimidation resurfaced, resulting in two material witnesses turning hostile. The
70/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
persistence of such threats led to the registration of a separate FIR at
Palayamkottai Police Station, and one of the accused has been arrested in
connection therewith.
48.5.The material placed before this Court indicates that the threat to
witnesses has not only continued but has intensified, particularly after the
dismissal of earlier bail applications in the year 2023. The prosecution has,
therefore, sought permission to record the evidence of witnesses through video
conferencing to mitigate such risks.
48.6.At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that one of the accused in
the present case has been found in unauthorized possession of a mobile phone
within the prison. The prosecution asserts that prior conspiracies were
orchestrated from within the prison using such means of communication. The
present conduct, therefore, lends credence to the apprehension that even
custodial conditions have not been sufficient to prevent interference with the
course of justice.
48.7.In the aforesaid factual matrix, the contention of the accused that
prolonged incarceration entitles them to bail under Article 21 of the
Constitution cannot be accepted in isolation. The right to personal liberty,
though fundamental, is not absolute and must be balanced against the necessity
of ensuring a fair trial, which includes the protection of witnesses.
71/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
48.8.In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in
2005 (2) SCC 42 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through a Three-Judge
Bench, held that while considering successive bail applications, the Court must
give due weight to the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of tampering
with witnesses, and the overall impact on the administration of justice.
Similarly, in the case of Manipal -vs- Rajesh Kumar @ Polia reported in 2020
(2) SCC 118, it has been reiterated that where there exists a reasonable
apprehension of witness intimidation or interference with the trial, such
considerations would outweigh the claim of liberty.
48.9.Further, in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb reported in
2021 (3) SCC 713, while recognizing the importance of Article 21 in cases of
prolonged incarceration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that such
relief is not automatic and must yield where the facts disclose a real possibility
of obstruction of justice or threat to witnesses.
49.Applying the above principles to the present case, this Court finds:
(i)A demonstrated pattern of witness intimidation, including the murder
of a key witness in a related case;
(ii)Subsequent acts of threat leading to witnesses turning hostile;
(iii)Registration of a fresh FIR during trial, indicating continuing
interference;
72/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
(iv)Conduct of the accused, including misuse of custodial conditions and
attempts to protract the trial through repeated applications;
50.The trial having already commenced and being at a crucial stage, with
the prosecution undertaking to conclude the same within a fixed timeframe. In
such circumstances, the balance tilts decisively in favour of preserving the real
meaning of the trial and ensuring witness protection.
51.Discussion on plea of medical ground:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also cautioned the Court below to grant bail
on the ground of medical necessity and only in the extraordinary circumstances
the case of the interim bail on the ground of the medical emergency has to be
considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
U.P.v.Amarmani Tripathi,Dinesh M.N.v.State of Gujarat and State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 after considering the
false request on the ground of medical necessity, declined to grant bail.
51.1. In this case also, the accused/Sutherson case of giving treatment to
his wife on the account of the accident and his close relative is nothing but
stage managed one to obtain bail. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
adduced the materials before this court to show that wife is a software engineer
73/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
and she also frequently visited jail and seen her husband namely, the said
accused. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, grant of
bail on the ground of the medical necessity is not legally permissible one. More
particularly, in this case, the said accused already involved in the subsequent
offence inside the prison and the witnesses are under the persistent threat
perception. There was no material produced before this Court to base the claim
on the medical ground no materials who produced to show any urgent need of
medical aid to consider for the interim bail on the ground of medical treatment
of his wife. Apart from that he has involved in serious prison offence during his
confinement in prison and FIR was already registered against him in crime
number and investigation is going on. More over, the learned trial Judge and
prosecution came forward to complete the trial within a period of two months.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused/Sutherson on the
ground of the medical necessity which according to the view of this Court is
that there was a misrepresentation of medical ground.
51.2.At this stage, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed
before this Court a detailed chart indicating the schedule for examination of the
remaining witnesses in S.C.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for
Trial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
74/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Thoothukudi, are as follows:
S.N Working date List of Witnesses Nature of Witness
1 1
st
Day L.W.14, L.W.16 to L.W.19 Formal Witnesses
2 2
nd
Day L.W.20 to L.W.25 Formal Witnesses, Observation & Seizure Mahazar
Witness
3 3
rd
Day L.W.26 to L.W.31 Formal Witnesses, Observation & Seizure Mahazar
Witnesses
4 4
th
Day L.W.32 to L.W.37 Formal witnesses
L.W.38 to L.W.45 Dispensed witnesses
5 5
th
Day L.W.46 to L.W.50 Confession Witnesses
6 6
th
Day L.W.51 to L.W.55 Confessions Witnesses
7 7
th
Day L.W.55 to L.W.61 Confession Witnesses
8 8
th
Day L.W.62 to L.W.67 Formal Witnesses
9 9
th
Day L.W.68 to L.W.72 Material Witnesses
10 10
th
Day L.W.73 to L.W.78 Materials & Formal Witnesses
11 11
th
Day L.W.79 to L.W.83 Expert & Formal Witnesses
12 12
th
Day L.W.84 to L.W.88 Other, Expert & Formal Witnesses
13 13
th
Day L.W.89 to L.W.91 FIR & Formal Witnesses
14 14
th
Day L.W.92 I.O.
51.3.On a perusal of the same, it appears that the prosecution proposes to
complete the trial within a period of two months. It is further brought to the
notice of this Court that the learned trial Judge has also addressed a
communication seeking an extension of time by two months for completion of
the trial. Having regard to the stage of the proceedings and the number of
witnesses yet to be examined, this Court finds that a time-bound direction is
both necessary and appropriate to ensure expeditious conclusion of the trial.
In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct all the learned
counsel appearing for the accused to extend full cooperation to the trial Court.
In particular, it is expected that the cross-examination of witnesses shall be
conducted on the very date of their examination-in-chief, without seeking
unnecessary adjournments, so as to adhere to the timeline fixed by this Court.
75/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
It is made clear that, in the event the accused extend full cooperation and the
trial is nevertheless not concluded within the stipulated period for reasons
attributable to the prosecution, it shall be open to the petitioners/accused to
approach this Court by filing a fresh application for bail, which shall be
considered on its own merits at that stage.
51.4.Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellants
solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration. The conduct of the accused,
coupled with the prevailing threat perception, disentitles them from seeking
discretionary relief at this stage.In view of the above circumstances, this Court
is not inclined to grant bail at present. However, it is open to the petitioner to
file a fresh bail petition after the examination of the material witnesses in the
above Sessions Case.
52.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition seeking bail stands
dismissed with the following directions:
52.1.The learned trial Judge is directed to make every endeavour to
complete the trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
52.2.The prosecution as well as the defence shall extend their fullest
76/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
cooperation for expeditious disposal of the case.
52.3.It is open to the witnesses, who are under threat perception, to
approach the competent authorities seeking appropriate protection, and upon
such request, the authorities concerned shall take necessary steps in accordance
with law.
52.4.Liberty is granted to the petitioners/accused to file a fresh bail
application in the event of delay in completion of trial for reasons not
attributable to them.
52.5.With the above observations and directions, the Criminal appeals
are dismissed. Consequently, the connected appeal also stands dismissed.
53.Accordingly, all the Criminal Appeals are dismissed with above
observation and directions.
01.06.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
sbn
77/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
To
1.The Special Court for Trial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Thoothukudi
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukdi Town SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
78/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J,
sbn
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
01.06.2026
79/79 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Legal Notes
Add a Note....