S.Sanjay vs State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
2026 Latest Caselaw 2584 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2584 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 May, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Sanjay vs State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police, on 14 May, 2026

                                                                             Crl.A.No.470 of 2026



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 14.05.2026

                                                    CORAM

                                   THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

                                              CRL.A.No.470 of 2026


                     S.Sanjay S/o Saravanan                     ... Appellant /Accused No.1

                                                       Vs
                     1. The State represented by:
                        The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                        Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.

                     2. The State represented by:
                        Inspector of Police,
                        Velagoundampatty Police Station
                        Namakkal District.
                        (Cr.No.2/2025)

                     3. Jayakodi                                            … Respondents

                     PRAYER: - Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(ii) of SC/ST Act,
                     r/w 415(2) of BNSS, to set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.25 of
                     2026 dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Special District Court for trial of
                     cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal and enlarge the appellant /
                     accused on bail.



                                   For Appellant   : Mr.C.Deepak Kumar

                                   For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran
                     1/8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       Crl.A.No.470 of 2026



                                                             Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2
                                                             R3 – No appearance

                                                       JUDGMENT

The present criminal appeal has been filed to set aside the

impugned order, dated 30.03.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2026 on the

file of the Special District Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA)

Act, Namakkal and enlarge the appellant / accused on bail in Crime No.2

of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.

2. The appellant / A4 was arrested and remanded to judicial

custody on 28.11.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 103(1),

61(2) and 49 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled

Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant / A4, along with

others went to TASMAC shop in a car and A1 to A3 brutally attacked the

victim till his death. The appellant was already enlarged on bail by this

Court in Spl.C.C.No.14 of 2025 and when the said case was posted for

hearing, the petitioner did not appear before the trial court. Due to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

absence of the petitioner, a non-bailable warrant was issued against the

petitioner and the same was executed on 28.11.2025. and hence on the

very same day, he was remanded back to judicial custody. The appellant

continues to remain in prolonged custody despite his full compliance with

the bail conditions. Hence, the present criminal appeal has been filed

challenging the impugned order dated 30.04.2026.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and the petitioner

has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The

petitioner is undergoing incarceration for the past 130 days and the charge

sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.14 of

2025 and the case is pending for trial.

5. Today, when the appeal came up for hearing, there is no

representation on the side of the third respondent / de facto complainant

and the name of the 3rd respondent has been printed in the cause list.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that if the petitioner is

released on bail, he will cause harm to the de facto complainant and

would also tamper the witnesses which will cause hindrance to the trial

process and hence, seeks dismissal of the present appeal.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

counsels appearing on either side.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and

the fact that the appellant has co-operated with the investigation and

complied with all bail conditions earlier imposed and also considering the

fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, and now the case is

pending for trial and the petitioner is in custody from 28.11.2025, this

Court is inclined to allow the criminal appeal by setting aside the order,

dated 30.04.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2026 on the file of the

Special District Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,

Namakkal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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

30.04.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2026 on the file of the learned

Special District Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,

Namakkal, is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on

his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction

of the learned Special District Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA)

Act, Namakkal, and on further condition that:

(i) the appellant shall appear before the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

(ii) The appellant and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression 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;

(iii) the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on all hearings;

(iv) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(v) the appellant shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(vi) the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(vii) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(viii) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions Judge/trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the 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];

(ix) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

14.05.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order MJS

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

1. The Central Prison Salem.

2. The Special District Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Namakkal

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.

5. The Inspector of Police, Velagoundampatty Police Station Namakkal District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.DHANABAL, J.

MJS

14.05.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis