Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 31.08.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B .PUGALENDHI

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

Ganesh Pandy ... Appellant /

Accused No.11

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Nanguneri Division,

Nanguneri Police Station,

Tirunelveli District.

[Crime No.143 of 2026]

2.Prapakaran ... Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 14 -A(2) of the SC/ST Act to set aside

the order of dismissal of bail application through the order dated

18.05.2026 made in CrlMP(MD)No.279 of 2026 in Crime No.143 of 2026

on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Jagadesswaran

For Respondent: Mr.V.Shathurthiraja

No.1 Government Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.G.Aravindhan

No.2 Aran Legal Consultancy

1/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

ORDER

The appellant is accused No.11 and he has been arrested by the

respondent police on 15.03.2026 in Crime No.143 of 2026 registered for

the offences under Section 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 109(1), 103(1)

of BNS, Section 25(1A) of Arms Act and Section 3 of Explosive

Substances Act, 1908 @ Section 61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1),

109(1), 103(1), 351(3) of BNS, Section 25(1A) of Arms Act and Section 3

of Explosive Substances Act 1908 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)

SC/ST (POA) Act and he was remanded to judicial custody. The appellant

has filed an application before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli

in CrMP.No.279 of 2026 seeking bail and the same has been rejected by the

trial court by order dated 18.05.2026. As against the same, this appeal has

been filed.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, A1 to A7 have

entered Perumpathu village, Nanguneri on 02.03.2026 at 07.00 pm, armed

with aruvals and attacked the residents of the village. They have attacked

one John Mark, who was standing near a welding shop and also attacked

another person / a migrant worker from Odisha, who was travelling on a

2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

bicycle. Both persons were brutally attacked and they succumbed to their

injuries. In furtherance to that, the accused Nos.1 to 7 rushed towards a tea

shop and assaulted four other persons indiscriminately and caused grievous

injuries. They have also hurled petrol bombs at the villagers. On the

complaint of the tea shop owner, the above case in Crime No.143 of 2026

was registered on 03.03.2026 as stated above.

3.The appellant /A11 has been added as accused on 14.03.2026,

based on the confession statements of A3 and A4, recorded on 08.03.2026,

that he has harboured the accused 1 to 7 and received their mobile phones.

The appellant was arrested on 15.03.2026.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that

the occurrence had taken place on 02.03.2026 and this appellant was

implicated and arrested only on 15.03.2026, based on the confession

statements of the co-accused persons. Even as per the confession

statements, the appellant was in possession of the mobile phones used by

A1 to A7, however, there are no materials collected by the investigating

agency as to whether the mobile phones said to have been recovered from

3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

this appellant were used by A1 to A7, who are said to have involved in the

offence on 02.03.2026. With this vague allegation, this appellant has been

arrested and he is in jail from 15.03.2026. He further submits that the

investigation has been completed and final report has been filed.

Even in the final report, there is no other averment as against this appellant,

other than the recovery of some mobile phones, which is not connected

with other accused persons. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks grant of

bail to the appellant.

5.The learned Government Advocate opposed grant of bail to this

appellant and submits that this appellant is the main accused, who enabled

A1 to A7 to escape from the place of occurrence. The offence committed

by the accused persons is heinous and was carried out with communal

motive. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate submits that

releasing this appellant on bail, would disturb the peace in that area and it

would also be threat to the witnesses in this case.

6.He further submits that the mobile phones of A1 to A7 have

been recovered from this appellant. Apart from this case, he is involved in

9 other cases, including a case of murder.

4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

7.Since this is a case involving offences under the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989,

notice was served to the defacto complainant, as required under

Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The learned counsel appearing for

the defacto complainant has opposed the grant of bail to the appellant

stating that there is a possibility of threatening the witness and tampering

the evidence.

8.This Court has considered the rival submissions made and also

perused the materials.

9.The nature of offence projected by the prosecution is that A1 to

A7 have indiscriminately attacked the villagers of Perumpathu and caused

two deaths and grievous injuries to several other villagers. It is also

projected that this occurrence had taken place on communal reasons.

The timing of the offence is just two weeks prior to the election notification

for the assembly elections in this state.

5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

10.The case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri

Police Station on 03.03.2026 in Crime No.143 of 2026 for the offences

under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 109(1), 103(1) of BNS,

Section 25(1A) of Arms Act 1959 and Section 3 of Explosive Substances

Act 1908. During the course of investigation, by way of alteration report,

the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)

Act were added on 14.03.2026. Thereafter, this appellant was arrested on

15.03.2026, as if he has helped the other accused, by safeguarding their

mobile phones.

11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that

there is no nexus between this appellant and the other accused and even the

alleged mobile phones said to have been recovered from this appellant is

not connected with the other accused persons. However, in order to detain

this appellant during the election and also to project this case as that of a

communal clash, the case has been altered and this appellant was arrested.

6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

12.This court has verified with the learned Government Advocate

as to the motive for the occurrence. The learned Government Advocate, by

referring to the case files, submits that there was a murder in the year 2022

and this offence has been committed as retaliation for the same, after a

period of four years. He also submits that a flex banner was installed during

a marriage function of one Esakkiraj on 08.02.2026, at Perumpathu and

photos of the same were posted on Instagram. Regarding this Instagram

post, some comments were made by A8 and there was a dispute between

A8 and some persons belonging to Perumpathu village. Therefore,

according to him, this flex banner was also one of the reasons for the

commission of offence.

13.In this regard, the learned Government Advocate has also

relied on the statement of one Esakkiraj and also one Muthu and Selvin,

that one month prior to the occurrence, a flex banner has been fixed during

the marriage function of Esakkiraj, displaying their community leader's

picture and there was a dispute regarding the same.

7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

14.This court is unable to understand the motive attributed by the

respondent police for the occurrence took place on 02.03.2026, in which

seven persons armed with aruvals, indiscriminately attacked the villagers,

who were standing near a tea shop and a welding shop. From the case of

the prosecution, it appears that the relatives of one Esakkiraj have put up

some flex banner, for his marriage, by printing the photo of a community

leader. For the same, the accused persons have randomly attacked several

villagers and also a migrant worker, who are in no way connected with the

aforesaid flex banner. It is not known as to why the accused persons would

randomly engage in such violence and also attack a migrant labour, who are

not connected with the above incidents.

15.As noted above, one of the deceased persons in this case is a

migrant worker from Odisha, who was working in a brick kiln in

Perumpathu village. The timing of the occurrence is also to be noted, which

is just two weeks prior to the election notification for the assembly

elections. In fact, this incident was projected as an election issue as if there

is no law and order in the State. Apart from that, this incident would

certainly have caused some deterrence to the migrant workers in the State.

8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

Therefore, this court expected that a proper investigation ought to have

been conducted in this case. However, the theory projected by the

investigating officer is far fetched and illogical. There are two motives

which have been projected for the occurrence, one is that for a murder,

which took place in the year 2022, this attack was carried out four years

later, as retaliation and the second motive is that the attack was carried out

due to a dispute, regarding a flex banner in an Instagram post. However, the

deceased persons and injured persons are in no way associated with these

incidents. Therefore, in order to ascertain the manner in which the

investigation has been carried out and also verify the materials collected by

the investigating agency, to arrive at a just conclusion, this court has called

for the case diary. On verification of the case diary, this Court has

identified the following defects in the investigation:

(i)The case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri

PS and he has conducted preliminary investigation from 02.03.2026 to

07.03.2026. Considering the grave nature of the crime, the Superintendent

of Police, by his order dated 07.03.2026, entrusted the investigation in

Crime No.143 of 2026 to the 1

st

respondent Deputy Superintendent of

9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

Police, Nanguneri Division. The occurrence had taken place in front of the

defacto complainant's tea shop. The defacto complainant and several other

persons were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence, apart from few

other witnesses. All the eye witnesses in their statements before the

Inspector of Police have uniformly stated that the accused persons from

Manjankulam village, have committed the offence. In their initial

statements, they did not attribute any motive for the occurrence. However,

the very same witnesses, when again examined by the DSP have uniformly

stated that the accused Nos.1 to 7 belong to a particular community and that

the occurrence had taken place on communal reasons, in order to deter

another community. In the statements recorded on 08.03.2026 before the

DSP, the murder said to have taken place in the year 2022, has been

introduced as a motive for the occurrence. Further, the dispute regarding

the installation of flex banner, is also added as a motive to give communal

colour to the occurrence. This is reflected from the statements of the

defacto complainant Prabhakaran, Ramasamy, Chandiran, Soranraj and

Alvin, which were recorded by the 1

st

respondent DSP.

10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

(ii)The investigating officer did not ascertain the nexus between

all those previous incidents and the injured persons and the deceased

persons. Instead, she has simply proceeded with the statements recorded by

her on 08.03.2026 and altered the offence on 14.03.2026, by inserting the

provisions under the SC/ST(POA) Act.

(iii)The Deputy Superintendent of Police has arrested this

appellant on 15.03.2026 at Tirunelveli New Bus Stand and has recovered 5

mobile phones from the appellant. He has been remanded to judicial

custody that he was in possession of mobile phones of accused Nos.1 to 7.

The investigating officer has not ascertained the connection of these mobile

phones with any particular accused. Instead, the appellant has been added

as an accused, that he was in possession of mobile phones belong to A1 to

A7. When 7 persons are said to be the main accused, who have committed

the offence in the place of occurrence, without even finding out which

mobile phone belongs to which accused, casual statements have been

recorded from the co-accused and based on that, the appellant has been

arrested.

11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

(iv) The accused are alleged to have met the appellant at

Sivakasi. The occurrence had taken place at Nanguneri Division, which is

more than 100 kilometres away. However, the DSP has not collected any

materials such as call details records, connecting this appellant with any of

other accused persons.

(v)The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons have

formed an Instagram group by the name of “Thayanoor Warriors” and

planned for offence using this group and chats. Even though the mobile

phones of the accused persons were recovered, the Instagram group and

chats of the accused persons, have not been recovered by the investigating

agency. Without recovering the same, the final report has been filed, that

the messages, chats and CDR records, would be recovered later and

thereafter, supplementary final report would be filed.

(vi)The provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 have been invoked in a

mechanical manner by the investigating officer and the investigation has

been conducted as if the occurrence took place on communal grounds.

12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

Even as per the statements of the eyewitnesses, the accused nos.1 to 7 made

general threats as against the whole village and its residents. However, the

provisions under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), which relate to the

intentional insult or abuse of members of the Scheduled Castes or Tribes in

public view, has been added in this case. Further, without even ascertaining

the community of the deceased person, the case has been altered under

Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, on 14.03.2026. However, on the

legal opinion of the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Tirunelveli region, the

provisions under the SC/ST(POA) Act have been deleted. Though it is only

an opinion and inter-departmental communication, this court is of the view

that it is relevant to extract the opinion of the Deputy Director of

Prosecution, Tirunelveli Region, to disclose the manner in which the

investigation has been conducted in this case:

“Explosive Substances Act:-

The Penal Provision invoked in this case is section

3(a) of Explosive Substances Act, but Investigation do not reveal

any explosion. Evidence collected at the scene of occurrence is

broken bottle, there is no whisper about ignition of fire or

remnants of any materials or residue of explosion, Molotov

cocktail is an incendiary explosive. But unless any explosion this

penal provision cannot be invoked.

13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act

It is ascertained that during investigation one of the

deceased belong to scheduled caste, hence SC/ST(POA) Act was

invoked. But later it was found that the deceased John was a

Christian, hence he becomes a Backward Caste, hence SC/ST

(POA) Act requires to be exonerated. Further there is no mischief

caused in the Scene of occurrence to attract Area Mischief.

This is a case of Double Murder

One John belong to the hamlet Indira Colony of

Perumpathu and Trinath Kata hail from State of Orissa.

Further 4 persons were Injured and they all sustained

Grievous Hurt.

You need to collect wound certificate for all these

accused, how they are Grievous.

For Example

Prabhaharan- has Injury on parietal region of head

but no description- how the Injury is Grievous.

•You need to understand unless Doctor opines in

accordance with 116 BNS- it cannot be construed as

Grievous Hurt.

•All the injuries to head or face need to be called as

Disfiguration of head or face.

•Occurrence had taken place at night and Accused Register

reveals 6 unknown person in one, and in all the other

unknown persons without number, these lacuna should be

justified in their 181 BNS Statements.

14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

•If there is enmity between 2 groups on the basis of caste or

communal issue you can invoke penal provision for that

too.

•Motive for the occurrence need to be properly proved

through witnesses.

•Conspiracy should be proved through witnesses.

•If CCTV Camera at the Scene of occurrence need to be

collected.

•Causing Disappearance of evidence need to be proved

cogently.

•You should establish the presence of prime accused at the

Scene of occurrence through proper statement without

shattering of their number.

•Previous murder case FIR and charge sheet should be

enclosed in the case diary as list of Document.

•Prepare Model list of witnesses and list of Documents to

be submitted along with final report.”

(vii)Based on the opinion of the Deputy Director of Prosecution,

Tirunelveli Region, the offences under the Arms Act 1959, Explosive

Substances Act 1908 and the SC/ST(POA) Act were deleted on 30.05.2026

and the final report has been filed for the offences under Sections 61(2),

191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 103(1), 103(2), 238, 351(3)

of BNS.

15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

(viii)Now in the final report, the investigating officer has taken a

stand that the accused persons, attacked the deceased and the witnesses,

under the impression that they belonged to scheduled caste.

(ix) No doubt, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 is

not relevant in the present case, as this provision punishes causing an

explosion likely to endanger life or property. Admittedly, in the present

case, there was no explosion and this provision cannot be invoked.

However, the attempt to hurl petrol bombs at the villagers is stated by the

witness in their statements and the bottle used for the same was also

recovered. Therefore, in all fairness, the investigating agency ought to have

invoked Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, which makes it

an offence to “attempt to cause an explosion, or for making or keeping

explosive with intent to endanger life or property”. In this case, the attempt

to cause an explosion is available from the witness statements and also the

bottle recovered from the place of occurrence.

16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

16.In my experience, I have not come across such a heinous

occurrence. Two innocent persons have been done to death and one of them

is a migrant worker from Odisha and four others have been brutally

attacked, resulting in grievous injuries. Since the occurrence had taken

place just prior to the notification for the assembly elections in Tamil Nadu,

this incident was projected throughout the State as if there was no law and

order in the State. In such a sensitive case, the investigation has been

conducted in a casual manner, without even finding out the real cause for

the incident. From the materials collected by the investigating agency, I

could not find out the real reason for the incident and even the reasons

projected by the investigating agency, are illogical and not supported by

any materials.

17.There is a hierarchy in the police administration from the

Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Director General of Police.

The Superintendent of Police in the district level is expected to monitor the

manner in which the investigations are carried out by the Station House

Officers. I am not aware of the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy

Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Police in the zonal

17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

level. But I presume that they are also expected to monitor the functioning

of their subordinates. The timing of the occurrence reflects on the law and

order issue in the State. At least in these types of cases, proper monitoring

of the investigation is expected from the higher officials.

The Superintendent of Police, in fact, has entrusted the investigation to the

1

st

respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri Division, by

order dated 07.03.2026 and the investigation was carried out by the

1

st

respondent DSP. After entrusting the investigation, it appears the

Superintendent of Police has not looked into the manner in which the

investigation has been progressed and the final report which has been filed.

At least in these types of heinous offences, some indulgence must be shown

by the DIG and the IG. However, it appears that they also have not looked

into the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. It is the

Deputy Director of Prosecution, Tirunelveli region, who pointed out the

defects in the investigation and that the materials collected by the

investigating officer was not sufficient to attract the offences under

Sections 25(1A) of Arms Act 1959, Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act

1908 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act.

Therefore, they have filed the final report deleting the same.

18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

18.The investigation in this case was conducted by the Inspector

of Police, Nanguneri PS from 03.03.2026 to 07.03.2026 in a particular

direction, thereafter, it has taken a turn towards communal clash aspect

from 07.03.2026. Finally, a U-turn has been taken on 30.05.2026, by filing

an alteration report and the final report has been filed for the offences under

Sections 61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 103(1),

103(2), 238, 351(3) of BNS, by deleting the offences under Sections

25(1A) of Arms Act 1959, Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 and

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act.

19.This occurrence reflects upon the State's law and order

situation. The materials collected by the investigating agency are not

sufficient to make out the case as against this appellant / A11. The

investigating agency did not bother to collect the relevant materials as

against this accused towards the offence. The investigation is not mere

recording of statements and filing the final report in a mechanical manner,

but it is a process of finding out the truth and collecting evidence and the

same is lacking in this case.

19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

20.Considering the nature of allegations, materials available as

against this appellant and the period of custody, this Court is inclined to

grant bail to the appellant, however considering the objection of the learned

Government Advocate on his antecedents, the following stringent

conditions are imposed:

(i) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a

bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with two sureties each

for a like sum to the satisfaction of the II Additional Sessions Court,

Tirunelveli.

(ii) The appellant and the sureties shall file an affidavit before the

respondent police that the appellant will not misuse this liberty and will not

indulge in any further offence and he will be available for the trial.

(iii)The appellant shall stay at Tiruppur report before the

Tiruppur Central Police station daily at 10.30am.

(iv)If the appellant changes his residence, the same shall be

informed to the respondent police immediately with correct address.

(v) If the appellant violates any of the conditions, the respondent

police shall move an application to cancel the bail granted to the appellant.

20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

21.In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the

learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in CrMP.No.279 of 2026,

dated 18.05.2026 is set aside.

22.At the same time, this court is of the view that the

investigation has not been carried out in a proper manner as referred above

and the materials collected by the investigating agency are not sufficient to

lay prosecution as against the main accused 1 to 7. Therefore, in the interest

of justice, this court directs the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, to

look into the manner in which the investigation has been conducted in this

case and if the same warrants, a special team shall be constituted to find out

the truth in Crime No.143 of 2026, with a direction to the special team to

file an application before the trial court for further investigation.

The special team shall conduct a proper investigation and find out the real

motive behind the occurrence and collect sufficient materials in this regard.

31.08.2026

DSK

21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

To

1.II Additional Sessions Judge,

Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Nanguneri Division,

Nanguneri Police Station,

Tirunelveli District.

3.The Judicial Magistrate,

Nanguneri.

4.The Inspector General of Police,

South Zone.

5.The Superintendent,

Central Prison,

Palayamkottai.

7.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

8.The Inspector of Police,

Tiruppur Central Police Station,

Tiruppur.

22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

B.PUGALENDHI, J.,

DSK

Crl.A(MD)No.601 of 2026

31.08.2026

23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis