✦ High Court of India · 13 Oct 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 13 Oct 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

13 Oct 2025

Bench

Honarable Principal Session Sessions K.RAJASEKAR

Length

1,276 words

CRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-10-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARCRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 20251. ALEXANDERS/o. Rajendiran, Anantham Pettai Street, Veeur Village, Tindivanam TK.Petitioner(s) in both Crl.O.P.sVs1. The State Rep ByThe Inspector of Police, Vikravandi Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.206/2025) and (202/2022)Respondent(s) in both Crl.O.PsPRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.25206 of 2025To enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in crime no.206/2025 on the file of vikravandi police station, villupuram district against the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 by the Honarable Principal Session Judge, Villupuram in CMP No.1775/2025 and thus render justice.PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.27502 of 2025To set aside the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Villupuram in Crl.M.P.No.1841/2022, cancelling the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.5949/2022 dated 11.08.2022 to the petitioner in Crime No.202/2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025(S.C.No.233/2022) restore the bail granted to the petitioner by order in Crl.M.P.No.5949/2022 dated 11.08.2022, subject to such terms and conditions.For Petitioner : Mr.M.Lourdu SavioFor Respondent(s):Mr.A.GopinathGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side)COMMON ORDERThe petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 126(2), 351(3) and 232(1) of BNS Act in Crime No.206 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he earlier granted bail in this case in C.M.P.No.5949 of 2022. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in the case of murder. After case was committed to Sessions, when the trial was taken up and the witnesses were summoned, this petitioner joined hands with another accused threatened the prime witness that he shall not give any evidence against this petitioner which resulted in lodging the case in Crime No.206 of 2025 on the file of the very same police station. Based on the registration of FIR and the allegations leveled against this petitioner, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025cancellation of bail was moved before the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram in CMP.No.1841 of 2025. After hearing both sides, the trial Judge has canceled the bail on the following reasons. “9.When assessing a matter of bail cancellation, the Court should consider the gravity and nature of the offense, the prima facie case against the accused, and the position and status of the accused. It is relevant to mention that the accused has been granted bail in a case of murder in S.C.No.233/2022.10.It is relevant to mention that the trial commenced in the said case and P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined on 05.02.2024, P.W.6 to P.W.9 were examined on 06.02.2024, P.W.10 was examined on 03.04.2024, P.W.11 and P.W.12 were examined on 10.04.2024, P.W.13 and P.W.14 were examined on 23.04.2024, P.W.15 and P.W.16 were examined on 11.06.2024, P.W.17 was examined on 15.07.2024 and prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. The respondent/accused has not cross examined the witnesses on their respective date of chief examination and allowed the trial to proceed and he filed an application to recall the witnesses after closure of the prosecution side evidence. It is further to be noted that P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.9 and P.W.12 were recalled and cross examined on 07.04.2025 on which date P.W.9 Tr.Prakash had turned hostile when cross examined by the accused. He was an important witness for recording of the confession statement leading to recovery of material object. P.W.5 has also retracted from his evidence in the chief https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025examination while he was recalled and cross examined by the accused. P.W.4 was also treated partly hostile. It is relevant to note that P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.9 were cross examined on 07.04.2025 and P.W.5 was cross examined on 04.06.2025. The occurrence of threatening the witness allegedly had taken place on the evening of 06.04.2025. On the next date when the witnesses were cross examined some of the witnesses turned hostile and it is further relevant to mention that on the said date this application for cancellation of bail was pending enquiry. The above aspects would go to show that the respondent/accused has misused the liberty granted to him by violating the terms of bail and interfering with the process of trial. The perusal of records in S.C.No.233/2022, and the supporting materials placed before the Court, this Court finds that there are prima facie materials indicating that the accused has contacted key prosecution witnesses and tried to influence them, thereby violating the conditions of the bail.11.The respondent/accused is in judicial custody in Cr.No.206/2025 and his bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.1775 of 2025 has been dismissed on 04.06.2025. This Court is convinced with the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor seeking cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the bail granted to the respondent/accused in Cr.No.202/2022 (S.C.No.233/2022) is hereby cancelled. The respondent/accused is directed to surrender before this Court immediately after his release on bail in Cr.No.206 of 2025, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for securing the custody of the respondent/accused in accordance with law. The point is answered https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025accordingly.” 3. Aggrieved over the same, the Crl.O.P.No.27502 of 2025, challenging the cancellation of bail order is filed by the petitioner herein. Simultaneously, he has also filed another petition seeking bail in this case in Crl.O.P.No.25206 of 2025. Both are taken up together and I have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl,Side) appearing for the respondent.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after examination of witnesses, the present complaint has been lodged by PW2 and based on the complaint, he was arrested. Further submitted that complaint itself motivated complaint and the petitioner is in custody from 09.04.2025 for nearly 6 months and prays to grant bail to the petitioner.5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner is adopting the delaying tactics and earlier all the witnesses were examined and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025when the matter was pending for defence witnesses they filed a petition before the trial Court seeking recall of PW2 and some other witnesses and the date was fixed for re-calling the witness, this petitioner once again filed memo before trial Court stating that Crl.O.Ps is pending before this Court referring the hearing of the petition and delaying the trial.6. I have also perused the records. 7. The allegation is that he threatened the witnesses and on 07.04.2025 witnesses Pw2 to 6 were examined and 9 and 12 were examined and recalled for cross examination. PW5 was also cross examined on 04.06.2025. Thereafter it has been recorded by the learned trial Judge that the petitioner herein has not come forward to cross any of the witnesses and further the petitioner involved in interfering with the process of trial, and there is prima facie material also recorded by the trial Court. Since the bail has been cancelled by the trial Court by stating various reasons including threatening of witnesses and also delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner, I am of the view that if the bail is granted to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025the petitioner, it would further encourage him to involve similar activities and further I am of the view that order passed by the Sessions judge is in order.8.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.13-10-2025mpaIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1.The Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram.2.The State Rep ByThe Inspector of Police, Vikravandi Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.206/2025)3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025K.RAJASEKAR J.mpaCRL OP Nos. 25206 and 27502 of 2025 13-10-2025

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments