Madras High Court

Vikram vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 12 September, 2025

                                                                                      Crl.A.(MD)No.881 of 2025

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                           Reserved on             : 04.09.2025

                                           Pronounced on           : 12.09.2025

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

                                            Crl.A.(MD)No.881 of 2025


                    1.Vikram

                    2.Veeramanikandan                                                 ... Petitioners/
                                                                                          Accused No. 3 & 4


                                                             Vs.


                    1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                      Illuppur,
                      Pudukkottai District.

                    2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by
                      The Inspector of Police,
                      Annavasal Police Station,
                      Pudukkottai District.
                      (Crime No.171 of 2025)                                           ...1st & 2nd
                                                                                          Respondents/
                                                                                          Complainants

                    3.Manikandan                                                       ...3rd Respondent/
                                                                                          Defacto
                                                                                          Complainant

                    1/12



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )
                                                                                         Crl.A.(MD)No.881 of 2025

                    Prayer : This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST
                    (POA) Amended Act, 2015, to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.159 of
                    2025 before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST
                    Act cases, Pudukkottai dated 11.08.2025 and allow this appeal by
                    enlarging the petitioner on bail in Crime No.171 of 2025 on the file of the
                    second respondent police.

                              For Appellants    : Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh
                                                  for Mr.N.Balasubramanian

                              For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
                                                Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 & R2

                                                  Mr.V.Selvakumar for R3


                                                        JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in

Cr.M.P.No.159 of 2025 dated 11.08.2025 on the file of the Special

Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act cases, Pudukkottai,

dismissing the petition for bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S.

2. The petitioners are the accused 3 and 4 in Crime No.171 of 2025

on the file of the second respondent police for the offences punishable

under Section 194 BNSS @ Section 108 BNS r/w Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s)

and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the third respondent/

defacto complainant, brother of the deceased Tamilselvan, FIR came to be

registered in Crime No.171 of 2025 on 20.07.2025 under Section 194

BNSS. In the complaint, the third respondent has alleged that his brother

was found hanging in their field at about 08.00 p.m. on 20.07.2025 and

that they were not having any suspicion over the death of his brother.

4. The second respondent police, on the basis of the further

statement recorded from the third respondent and his sister Santhiya, filed

an alteration report, altering the case from Section 194 BNSS to offences

under Section 108 BNS r/w Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST

(PoA) Act, 1989.

5. The case of the prosecution as evident from the alteration report

filed on 22.07.2025 is that the third respondent and their family are

belonging to Hindu Devendrakula Velalar community, that his brother

Tamilselvan, who completed B.Com. was in love with one Seethalakshmi,

daughter of Karikalan @ Kumar belonging to Hindu Pandaram

community, for more than three years, that the said Karikalan family, by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )

citing the difference in community, had threatened the said Tamilselvan to

discontinue their love affairs or else, he would be killed, that since the said

Karikalan had arranged another bridegroom for his daughter

Seethalakshmi, the said Tamilselvan had informed that he would marry

Seethalakshmi and take her to some other place, that the said Karikalan

had informed the love affairs to one Moorthy belonging to Hindu

Agamudaiyar, majority community of that area and on 19.07.2025, the

said Karikalan along with his relatives, the appellants herein had assaulted

the said Tamilselvan and threatened him not to speak with Seethalakshmi

or else he would be killed, that the said Tamilselvan after informing the

above incident to his sister went to their field and that subsequently they

came to know that the said Tamilselvan had hanged himself in their field.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), on

instructions, would submit that after altering the case for the offence under

the SC/ST (POA) Act, the first respondent police has taken up the

investigation and examined some witnesses and conducted some discreet

enquiry through which he came to know that since the appellants had

assaulted and threatened the deceased Tamilselvan, he committed suicide

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )

and that the other two persons named by the third respondent in further

statement, Karikalan and Moorthy were not at all involved.

7. Considering the submission made by the learned Government

Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court called for the Case Diary (CD) file.

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, though the second respondent police has filed a counter

affidavit on 26.08.2025, they have not whispered about the alleged

deletion of the said two accused and the basis for implicating the present

appellants. Notably, the alteration report came to be filed on 22.07.2025,

but the prosecution did not disclose the further examination of the third

respondent and his sister, the filing of alteration report, or the subsequent

deletion of the other two persons from the present case.

9. It is evident from the CD file that after registering the FIR, the

police recorded the third respondent's statement on 21.07.2025, which

corroborated his original complaint. However, it is further evident from

the CD file that on the same day, the police have taken another complaint

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )

from the third respondent, wherein, he levelled allegations against the said

Seethalakshmi's father Karikalan, Moorthy and the appellants herein. The

next day, the first respondent police recorded further statements of the

third respondent and his sister Santhiya, wherein, the third respondent

stated that only on the instigation of the said Karikalan, the appellants had

threatened the deceased and subsequently on 19.07.2025 at about 04.30

p.m., the appellants had abused the deceased in filthy language using caste

name and informed that they had already engaged another bridegroom for

Seethalakshmi, but the third respondent's sister in her further statement has

stated that after coming to know about the love affairs, the said Karikalan

group had already threatened her brother and on 19.07.2025 at about 04.30

p.m., the appellants had abused her brother in filthy language and

informed about the engagement of another bridegroom for Seethalakshmi.

10. Notably, the alteration report cites the third respondent's further

statement and his sister's statement as its basis. However, a cursory review

of the CD file reveals that the alteration was actually based on the second

complaint from the third respondent. Furthermore, the appellants' arrest on

23.07.2025 and the investigating officer's filing of the alteration report on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )

25.07.2025, dropping co-accused Karikalan and Moorthy, allegedly based

on witness statements, raises questions.

11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, though in the alteration report, it has been alleged that the

appellants had assaulted the deceased on 19.07.2025, as per the

postmortem report, the deceased body does not contain any external

injuries except on neck and left foot. But the third respondent and his

sister in their further statement and the other witnesses examined by the

investigating officer have not stated that the deceased was assaulted by the

appellants. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, the third respondent after lodging the complaint on 20.07.2025

stating that they are not having any suspicion over the death of his brother

gave another complaint which was admittedly not recorded alleging that

all the four accused were responsible for the death of his brother. The

learned Sessions Judge, without considering the same, has mechanically

dismissed the petition.

12. As already pointed out, though the alteration report and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )

deletion report were filed in the last week of July, the same were not

disclosed by the Police in their counter affidavit and no acceptable reason

is given for such non-disclosure.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would

submit that the third respondent has given further statement alleging the

involvement of all the four accused but the police for the reasons best

known to them, have deleted the main accused, which includes the father

of Seethalakshmi.

14. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would admit

that the appellants are not having any previous cases.

15. In light of the case's facts and circumstances, particularly the

nature of allegations, the initial complaint, the manner of filing alteration

and deletion reports, and considering the appellants' judicial custody since

23.07.2025, with most of the investigation completed and no adverse

antecedents, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the appellants, thereby

setting aside the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Special Court for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )

SC/ST Act cases, Pudukkottai in Crl.M.P.No.159 of 2025.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated

11.08.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.159 of 2025 on the file of the Special

Court for Trial of SC/ST Act cases, Pudukkottai, is set aside. The

appellants are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for

a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two

sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special

Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act cases, Pudukkottai, and on

further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Sessions Judge may obtain a copy of their valid identity card to ensure their identity.

[b] the appellants shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[c] the appellants shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the appellants shall co-operate with the investigation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 07:41:52 pm )

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Special Judge/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellants in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellants released on bail by the learned Special Judge/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].