[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Anto Thatheyumisal vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 9 April, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
in Crl.A.(MD)No.1081 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
in Crl.A.(MD)No.1081 of 2025
Anto Thatheyumisal ... Petitioner
versus
State of Tamilnadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Asaripallam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 430(1) BNSS Act, to enlarge the
petitioner/appellant on bail, suspending the sentence imposed upon him by
Judgment dated 16.04.2025 in S.C.No.259 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Perumal
For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
in Crl.A.(MD)No.1081 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused No.2 in S.C.No.259 of 2022 on the file of
the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil. He was tried along
with two other accused for the offence under Section 294(b), 307, 506(2) IPC
that they have attacked the defacto complainant's husband with weapons and
caused multiple injuries. After the trial, the trial Court, by its Judgment dated
16.04.2025, found the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them
as under:
Sections Punishment Fine amount Default
307 IPC 10 years Rs.1,000/- Six months
A1 rigorous simple
imprisonment imprisonment
307 IPC 10 years Rs.1,000/- Six months
A2 rigorous simple
imprisonment imprisonment
342 IPC One year Rs.1,000/- One month
A3 rigorous simple
imprisonment imprisonment
307 r/w 34 10 years Rs.1,000/- Six months
A3 IPC rigorous simple
imprisonment imprisonment
Challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed a
separate appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.1081 of 2025 and the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
was admitted by this Court on 13.10.2025. Along with this appeal, the petitioner
has moved this petition seeking to suspend the sentence.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the
following points:
(i) There is only one eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.2, who is the
injured witness and even as per his evidence, the petitioner/A2 did not cause
any injury on his body.
(ii) P.W.6-Investigating Officer, in his evidence, stated that the complaint
was lodged by P.W.1 in Asaripallam Medical College Hospital, whereas, P.W.1,
in her evidence stated that she lodged the complaint in the police station, since
the injured was in unconscious stage. But, as per the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor,
the injured was conscious and able to respond the queries.
(iii) The prosecution did not examine any witness to prove the confession
given by the 1st accused and also the recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.6.
(iv) The Mahazar witnesses, who are P.W.5 and P.W.6, turned hostile and
therefore, the place of occurrence is not proved by the prosecution.
(v) As per the evidence of P.W.2, one Sibu accompanied him to the place
of occurrence, but, he was not examined on the side of the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
(vi) As per the evidence of P.W.3, the Doctor who admitted P.W.2 in the
hospital, the injured P.W.2 was taken to the Hospital by one Mohamed
Thoulath. But, he was not examined on the side of the prosecution.
(vii) The FIR and statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. which were
recorded on 11.06.2021, reached the Court only on 13.06.2021.
(viii) As per Ex.P3, the injured P.W.2 was attacked by only one person.
(ix) The petitioner is in custody from the date of conviction, ie. from
16.04.2025.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed this petition
stating that all the three accused had attacked P.W.2 and in fact, the petitioner
only called P.W.2 to the place of occurrence and the victim has suffered eight
injuries, out of which, two injuries are grievous in nature.
4. In response to the objection raised by the learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side), the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
main overt act is attributed only as against the 1st accused and the 1st accused
has already been released on bail by this Court in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.17731 of
2025 dated 07.04.2026, by suspending the sentence imposed by the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made.
6. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.259 of 2022. The case of
the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused attacked P.W.2
with weapons and caused injuries. The overt act is attributed only as against the
1st accused and the 1st accused has already been released on bail by this Court in
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.17731 of 2025 dated 07.04.2026.
7. The petitioner has raised certain arguable points, however, the same
can be considered during the final hearing of the appeal and the appeal could
not be taken up for final hearing immediately. Further, the petitioner is in jail
from the date of conviction.
8. Considering the period of incarceration and also considering the fact
that the 1st accused has been released on bail and the appeal could not be taken
up for final hearing immediately, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence
with conditions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
9. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is
suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal and the petitioner is ordered
to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the
the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Nagercoil.
(ii) The petitioner and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar
Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their
residence address, before the trial Court as well as before the respondent Police.
In the event, if there is any change of address, the same shall be intimated to the
respondent Police without fail.
(iii) The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted to him by
indulging in any further offence.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court once in a month,
i.e. on the first working day of every English Calender month at 10.30 a.m., till
the disposal of the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
(v) If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, it is open to the
respondent police to file an application to cancel the bail granted to him.
09.04.2026
ogy
To
1. The Principal Assistant Sessions Court,
Nagercoil.
2. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Asaripallam Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13999 of 2025
09.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
