[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Saravanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its The ... on 20 May, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
CRL A(MD). No.584 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 20.05.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL A(MD)No.584 of 2026
Saravanan
S/o. Murali Krishnan @ Kittu ... Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station
Tirunelveli District.
2. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By
Inspector Of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Cr. No. 302/2024)
3. Muthukumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989, as amended by Act 1/2016 seeking to call for the records and set
aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special for trial of
cases registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Tirunelveli in
Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2026 dated 11.05.2026 and enlarge the appellant on
bail in connection with the criminal case in Spl.S.C.No.75 of 2024 in
Crime No.302 of 2024 and to pass such other orders.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A(MD). No.584 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.J.Vijayaraja
For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R1 and R2
ORDER
The present Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the
impugned order, dated 11.05.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2026 in
Spl.S.C.No.75 of 2024 in Crime No.302 of 2024, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases, registered under SC/ST
(POA) Act 1989, Tirunelveli.
2. The appellant herein is arrayed as accused No.6 in the above
referred crime number. The said case has been registered against this
petitioner and other accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 of
IPC and under Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act @ 147, 148, 341,
120(b), 294(b), 302 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
After registering the FIR, he was arrested and released on bail on
condition to appear before the Cheyyar Police Station daily twice at
09.00 a.m and 05.00 p.m. Thereafter, he failed to comply the condition
and hence, NBW was issued against the appellant and he was arrested on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
05.11.2025. Thereafter, he filed an application under Section 483 of
BNSS, praying to be enlarged on bail. However, by the impugned order,
the trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the appellant. The
appellant has been in incarceration since 05.11.2025. Challenging the
said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this
Court.
3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
Accused No.12 who stands who stands on a similar footing and who was
also rejected in execution of NBW had filed Criminal Appeal No.559 of
2026 before this Court and the appeal was allowed by this Court on
07.05.2026. The paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the said order are extracted
hereunder:
''6. Now, on going through the impugned order dated
30.04.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court
for trial of cases registered under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989,
Tirunelveli, it is revealed that, after mentioning the reason that
the NBW is pending against the other accused, dismissing this
petition is not necessary. More than that, considering the period
of incarceration, further custodial interrogation is not necessary
for completing the investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by
setting aside the order, dated 30.04.2026 made in Cr.M.P.No.239
of 2026 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court
for trial of cases registered under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989,
Tirunelveli.''
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the appellant has been in judicial custody for the past 196 days. He
would further submit that, due to previous enmity, the appellant has been
falsely implicated in this case. The investigation has been completed, and
the charge sheet has been filed and taken on file in S.C. No. 75 of 2024;
therefore, he prayed that the appellant be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent would submit that the appellant was already granted bail, but
he failed to comply the condition, due to which, the trial Court had issued
NBW to the appellant and the same was executed and arrested the
appellant. He would further submit that the investigation has been
completed and the trial is not yet commenced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials avialable on
record.
7. Considering the fact that the Accused No.12 had also enlarged
on bail by this Court on 07.05.2026, the appellant herein is also stands on
the similar footing. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal
Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 11.05.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.
248 of 2026 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for
trial of cases registered under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Tirunelveli.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order,
dated 11.05.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.248 of 2026 on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases registered under
the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Tirunelveli, is set aside. The appellant 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 Sessions Judge, Special Court for
trial of cases registered under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Tirunelveli,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and on further condition that:
[a] the appellant shall appear before the respondent police daily at
10.30 a.m. until further orders;
[b] the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either
during investigation or trial;
[c] the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or
trial;
[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Trial Court is
entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance
with law, as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellants
released on bail by the Trial Court itself as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
20.05.2026
gvn
Index : Yes / No.
NCC : Yes / No.
Note:
Issue order copy on 21.05.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases registered
under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Tirunelveli
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Inspector Of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Cr. No. 302/2024)
4.The Oficer-in-charge,
Central Prison, Madurai.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
gvn
20.05.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
