[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Saravanan @ Gopi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 March, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.MP(MD) No.12360 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :17.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.MP(MD) No.12360 of 2025
in
Crl.A(MD) No.964 of 2025
R.Saravanan @ Gopi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli Sub Division,
Cheranmahadevi Subdivision,
Suthamalli Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
[Crime No.193 of 2027]
2.Arulmozhi ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 430(2) of BNSS, to suspend the
sentence of imprisonment imposed by the II Additional Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli SC.No.48 of 2017, by judgment dated 17.07.2025 and enlarge
the petitioner / appellant on bail, pending disposal of the above said
criminal appeal.
For Petitioner : Mr.AayiramK.Selvakumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,
No.1 Government Advocate
For Respondent :Mr.R.Venkatesan
No.2
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 07:19:05 pm )
Crl.MP(MD) No.12360 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is accused No.1 in SC.No.48 of 2017 on the file of
the II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and he was tried along with
other accused and by judgment dated 17.07.2025, this petitioner was found
guilty, convicted and sentenced as follows:
Sl.No Section Punishment Fine default class
(in Rs)
1 376 IPC 10 years rigorous 5,000 2 months simple
imprisonment imprisonment
2 417 IPC 1 year simple - -
imprisonment
3 3(2)(V) of 10 years rigorous 5,000 2 months simple
SC/ST (POA) imprisonment imprisonment
Act
4 3(1) (XII) of 1 year rigorous 1,000 1 months simple
SC/ST (POA) imprisonment imprisonment
Act
As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the
petitioner has filed an appeal in Crl A(MD)No.964 of 2025 along with this
petition to suspend the sentence imposed on him by the trial court.
The appeal has been admitted by this Court.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the
time of occurrence the defacto complainant was aged about 29 years and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 07:19:05 pm )
the petitioner was 35 years. They had affairs, married, lived together for
sometimes and thereafter due to misunderstanding, they are living
separately. The learned counsel by referring to the evidence of defacto
complainant / PW1 submits that she in her evidence has addressed the
petitioner as her husband and the other accused as her in-laws. While so the
defacto complainant lodged a complaint as if the petitioner promised to
marry her, had physical relationship and thereafter cheated her. Based on
this complaint, the respondent police registered the case and filed the final
report. The trial court has convicted the petitioner as above. The petitioner
is in jail from 17.07.2025. He further submits that there was attempts by
this court for mediation in this petition and this court called the defacto
complaint twice to find out the possibility of reunion, however, the defacto
complainant has refused to live with the petitioner.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant /
2nd respondent submits that she is afraid of joining the petitioner and she
apprehends danger to her life.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent
has confirmed the age of the defacto complainant as 29 at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 07:19:05 pm )
occurrence and based on the oral instruction given by the Sub Inspector of
Police one Mr.Rathod, he further submits that the petitioner is living with
another person and the defacto complainant is living with another person
and that there is no possibility of reunion between the petitioner and the
defacto complainant.
5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the
material placed on record.
6.The victim was aged about 29 years and had physical relationship on
the pretext that the petitioner would marry her. Even according to the
defacto complainant they had physical relationship several times believing
this petitioner would marry her and the defacto complainant had refused
before this court for reunion Considering the available materials this court
is inclined to allow this petition.
7. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of
imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal
on the following conditions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 07:19:05 pm )
(i)The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two
sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the II Additional Sessions
Court, Tirunelveli.
(ii)The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the respondent
police that he will not misuse this liberty and will not indulge in any further
offence.
(iii)The petitioner shall report before the trial court on the first
working day of every month.
(iv) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the respondent
police shall move an application to cancel the order of suspension of
sentence of imprisonment.
17.03.2026
DSK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 07:19:05 pm )
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirunelveli Sub Division,
Cheranmahadevi Subdivision,
Suthamalli Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
2. II Additional Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai.
Copy to
The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 07:19:05 pm )
B.PUGALENDHI, J.,
DSK
in
17.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2026 07:19:05 pm )
