Suresh vs The State
2026 Latest Caselaw 1160 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1160 Mad
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Suresh vs The State on 11 March, 2026

Author: M.Nirmal Kumar

Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar

CRL OP No. 4869 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL OP No. 4869 of 2026
Suresh
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State
Rep. by the Public Prosecutor

2. The Inspector of Police
R.S. Puram Police Station,
Coimbatore District
..Respondents

To set aside the order dated 23.01.2026 made in M.P. No.01 of
2026 in C.A. No.47 of 2026 on the file of the Ld. Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.T.Vishnu

For Respondents : Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner/accused was convicted by the Trial Court in S.C.No.42 of

2022 for the offence under section 392 of IPC and sentenced to three years R.I

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default three months S.I. The petitioner was

acquitted for the offence under Section 397 r/w 506(2).

__________ Page1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

2. Aggrieved against the conviction, the petitioner had preferred an

appeal before the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2026 and also

filed a suspension of sentence petition in M.P.No.1 of 2026. The learned

Sessions Judge by order dated 23.01.2026, admitted the appeal and dismissed

the suspension of sentence petition, against which the present petition has been

filed.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.2020, at about 10.10 am,

the defacto complainant walking towards Mahalakshmi Bakery after parking his

two-wheeler, when the accused had interrupted the defacto complainant and

demanded money from him by threatening him with knife. Thereafter, the

accused had taken away a sum of Rs.200/- and a phone worth of Rs.1,500/-

from the packet of the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant

attempted to refrain from the accused, he fled away from the place. Thereafter,

the defacto complainant had raised an alarm and PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 who

were near the scene of occurrence had attempted to catch him. At that time, the

petitioner had threatened them by showing knife and fled away.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in this case and on

completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the case was tried

by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. During Trial, PW1 to PW10 were

examined. Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were produced.

__________ Page2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

5. The Trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, had convicted the petitioner

as stated above. On appeal, the lower appellate court dismissed the suspension

of sentence petition, against which the present petition.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the maximum period of sentence

imposed against the petitioner is only for three years and the petitioner is

entitled for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. However, the lower appellate court had dismissed the suspension of

sentence for the reason that the petitioner was involved in seven cases of similar

nature and without considering the petitioner’s case on merits. He further

submitted that the narration of the above case would clearly show that it is a

fabricated case for detaining the petitioner under Act 14. In this case, PW2 to

PW5, the alleged eye-witnesses who were present in the scene of occurrence,

their evidence are contradictory to each other and also with that of PW1. The

arrest and recovery is doubtful. But the Trial Court, instead of giving benefit of

doubt to the petitioner, had given benefit of doubt to the witnesses, stating that

witnesses examined after a long period of time from the date the occurrence,

hence there might be some variations and not considered them as contradictions.

He further submitted that the petitioner was in incarceration from 25.06.2020 to

08.04.2021 and after conviction, he was in prison since 16.12.2025, i.e., for

almost 3 months. Hence, the petitioner had spent more than 1/3rd of his

sentence.

__________ Page3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the

petitioner’s contention and submitted that in this case, the defacto complainant

is the victim, who had suffered threats by the petitioner with knife and lost

Rs.200/- and a mobile phone worth of Rs.1,500/- which was taken away by the

petitioner. On arrest, the knife was marked as MO1, the mobile phone was

seized and marked as MO2. Further, in this case, PW2 to PW5 are the eye-

witnesses present in the scene of occurrence who confirmed and corroborated

the evidence of PW1. PW6 and PW7 are the witnesses for arrest and recovery.

PW8 to PW10 are the Police Officials who were Investigation Officers in this

case. All the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The trial court

considered the case and rightly convicted the petitioner. Further, insofar as

Crime No.996 of 2016, Crime No.1183 of 2016 and Crime No.1193 of 2016 on

the file of the Palladam Police Station are concerned, the cases have been

disposed of. With regard to the case in Crime No.362 of 2016 on the file of the

Kamanayakkanpalayam Police Station and Crime No.388 of 2019 & Crime

No.387 of 2019 on the file of the Thudiyalur Police Station are concerned,

though charge sheets have been filed, they are yet to be taken on file. With

regard to Crime No.819 of 2020 & Crime No.906 of 2020 on the file of B2,

R.S.Puram Police Station and Crime No.25 of 2021 on the file of

Kadaiyalumoodu Police Station are concerned, the cases are pending trial.

__________ Page4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

8. Considering the fact that except for the present case, in all the other

cases, the petitioner was granted bail and the petitioner was already in prison for

more than a year, i.e., 1/3rd of his sentence and the appeal is likely to be heard

after sometime, this court is inclined to grant suspension of sentence.

Accordingly, the order dated 23.01.2026 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2026 on the file

of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore is set aside.

9. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond

for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties each

for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Coimbatore and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Judge shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the second respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m., till the disposal of the appeal, except when he has to appear before the trial court in connection with the other crimes; [c] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judge is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the

__________ Page5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2026 07:30:24 pm )

Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];