[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R. Arun vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 9 January, 2026
Crl.A. No. 1791 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A. No. 1791 of 2025
R. Arun
S/o. Rajendran,
No.4/851, Agan Nagar,
4th Street, Perumuchi,
Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District. ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arakkonam, Ranipet District.
2. State rep. By Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Town Police Station,
Ranipet District.
(Crime No. 416 of 2025)
3. Saranya, (VAO)
W/o. Nagarathinam,
No.33, Perumuchi Village,
Arakkonam Taluk,
Ranipet District.
4. S. Kalanithi,
W/o. Late Suresh,
No. 393/241, Agan Nagar,
1st Arakkonam Taluk,
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:54 pm )
Crl.A. No. 1791 of 2025
Ranipet District – 631 002.
Phone 9677484774
(R4 is suo motu impleaded as per orders of
this Court dated 08.12.2025 & 08.01.2026
in Crl.A. No. 1791 of 2025.) ..Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)2) of Scheduled Caste/
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the
orderdated 23.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1487 of 2025 in Spl.S.C. No.
210 of 2025 in Crime No. 416 of 2025 by the Court of Sessions Division of
Ranipet District and enlarge the appellant on bail.
For Appellant :: Mr.M.D. Ilayaraja
For Respondents :: Mr.S. Raja Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 & R2
No appearance for R3
Mr.V. Perarasu
Legal Aid Counsel for R4
JUDGMENT
The appellant challenges the order dated 23.10.2025 passed in
Crl.M.P. No. 1487 of 2025 in Spl.S.C. No. 210 of 2025 in Crime No. 416 of
2025 by the Court of Sessions Division of Ranipet District dismissing the
appellant’s application for bail.
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:54 pm )
2. The appellant is an accused in Crime No. 416 of 2025
registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 296(b), 238 of BNS Act, 2023
and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is that one Gowtham,
since deceased, had illicit intimacy with the wife of appellant’s brother; that
the said fact was informed to the appellant/A1 by A3; that all the accused
conspired to do away with the deceased; that they caused the death of the
deceased and threw the body into a lake.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
case was initially registered under Section 194(1) of BNSS; that it was
subsequently altered to aforementioned offences; that the case is based on
circumstantial evidence; that the appellant has been implicated only on
suspicion; that the appellant is in custody from 18.06.2025; that the appellant
has no bad antecedents; that co-accused A3 was granted bail by the Sessions
Court by order dated 15.09.2025; that the final report has already been filed
and that it has been taken cognizance in Special S.C. No. 210 of 2025.
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:54 pm )
5. Though notice was served on the de facto complainant,
none entered appearance on her behalf. Therefore, this Court appointed
Mr.V. Perarasu, who represented the de facto complainant and he would
submit that the appellant is guilty of a heinous offence; that if the appellant
is enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses and since, the trial is
yet to commence, the appeal may be dismissed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondents 1 and 2 confirmed the fact that one of the co-accused has been
released on bail and that the respondent Police have filed the final report.
7. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant; learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2.
8. It is seen that the case against the appellant was initially registered
under Section 194(1) of BNSS and subsequently, it was altered to offences
under Sections 103(1), 296(b), 238 of BNS Act, 2023 and 3(2)(v) of
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
case is based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, the appellant is in
custody from 18.06.2025. The respondent Police have completed the
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:54 pm )
investigation and filed the final report and the same has been taken on file in
Spl.S.C.No.210 of 2025. Considering the period of incarceration of the
appellant and the aforesaid facts, further incarceration of the appellant may
not be required. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned
order and release the appellant on bail on stringent conditions.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.10.2025 in
Crl.M.P. No. 1487 of 2025 in Spl.S.C. No. 210 of 2025 in Cr.No. 416 of
2025 is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be
enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with
two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of
the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam.
(ii) The appellant shall appear before the
Trial Court on the first working day of every month;
(iii) The appellant and the sureties shall
affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:54 pm )
in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a
copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and
mobile numbers to ensure their identity;
(iv)the appellant shall appear before the
trial Court on all hearings;
(v)the respondent police is directed to
ensure that there is no threat to the life and safety of
the de-facto complainant. In the event of any threat,
appropriate steps to be taken.
(vi)the appellant shall not commit any
offences of similar nature;
(vii)the appellant shall not abscond either
during investigation or trial;
(viii)the appellant shall not tamper with
evidence or witness either during investigation or
trial;
(ix)on breach of any of the aforesaid
conditions, the learned Sessions Judge/Trial Court is
entitled to take appropriate action against the
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:54 pm )
appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions
have been imposed and the appellant released on bail
by the learned Sessions 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];
(x)if the accused thereafter absconds, a
fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
09.01.2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nv
(Note to Office: Issue order copy
today (09.01.2026) itself)
To
1. The Court of Sessions Division
of Ranipet District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Arakkonam.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison for Men, Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:54 pm )
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
nv
09.01.2026
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:54 pm )
