High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on: 19.06.2025Pronounced on: 09.07.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICrl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7336 of 2025 1.M.GopalakrishnanS/o.Meenatchikone2.M.KarmegamS/o.Meenatchikone3.R.AjithbalanS/o.Ramu...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 2 & 4Vs.State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Melavalavu Police Station,Madurai District.(Crime No.202 of 2022)... Respondent/ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to release thepetitioners on bail relating to the case in S.C.No.107 of 2025 on the file of the IVAdditional District and Sessions Court, Madurai in Crime No.202 of 2022 on the fileof the respondent police.1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025 For Petitioners : Mr.Dr.R.AlagumaniFor Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.side)For Intervenor : Mr.KR.Bharathi Kannan O R D E RThe petitioners seek bail in connection with the case in S.C.No.107 of 2025 onthe file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai relating to CrimeNo.202 of 2022 of respondent police.2. The brief case of the prosecution:-The deceased Suresh purchased land measuring 3.5 acres at SambiranipattiVillage, Melur Taluk and cultivated coconut trees. The adjacent lands are alsoowned to the deceased Suresh's friend Lakshmanan and to the 1st petitionerGopalakrishnan. There was a civil dispute between the 1st petitioner and saidLakshmanan. The said Lakshmanan filed the civil suit and obtained decree andbased on the decree, he put boundary stone after measurement. On 24.02.2020,the deceased Suresh and his father Dharmarajan were putting boundary stones ontheir land. Lakshmanan was also present there. At that time, the petitioners, alongwith other accused, came there, assaulted and caused injuries to the deceased Suresh2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025and his father Dharamarajan by deadly weapons and scolded Lakshmanan usingcaste name. So, Lakshmanan gave a complaint before the Melavalavu police stationand the same was registered in Crime No.39 of 2020 U/s.147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b),323, 324, 307 and 379 of IPC and U/s.3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Amendment Act, 2015, against the petitioners and other accused. The petitionersand other accused were granted bail and came out. Now, the case is pending asSpl.S.C.No.25 of 2021 before the III Additional District Court (PCR), Madurai. In thatcase, the deceased Suresh and his father Dharmarajan are ocular witnesses. 2.1. While being so, 08.12.2022 at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased Suresh went tofarm in Sambiranipatti by car and parked his car near Sambiranipatti Mandhai. Onwatching this, the petitioners and other accused made quarrel with him andassaulted him with aruval, wooden log and caused death. The wife of the deceasedlodged a complaint before the Melavalavu police station, and another case in CrimeNo.202 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners and other accused U/s.147,148, 341, 302 and 506 (2) IPC. In this case, the petitioners also obtained bail from thePrincipal Sessions Court, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2023 on 24.04.2023.However, the defacto complainant Jeya Gowsalya, wife of the deceased, movedCrl.O.P(MD) No.16237 of 2023 for cancellation of bail and the same was allowed3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025on 06.09.2024 by this Court, hence, the bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly submitted that thepetitioners 1 and 2 are brothers. The 1st petitioner is the President of the FarmersAssociation and also the President of the Village Forest Committee organised by theDistrict Forest Department. The 1st petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.8286 of 2012 beforethis Court to remove encroachments to save water bodies and the said Writ Petitionwas allowed on 06.08.2014. But, the encroachers namely Kusalavan and Rajendrandid not remove their encroachments. So, there were cases registered against him andhis family members. In this way, the earlier case in Crime No.39 of 2020 was foistedagainst the petitioners through Lakshmanan, who is the son-in-law of aboveKusalavan. The petitioners were granted bail in Crime No.39 of 2020 by the IIIAdditional District Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai in Crl.M.P.Nos.445 and 447 of2020. In the meantime, the deceased Suresh was found dead near Mandhai. Takingadvantage of the same, the encroachers foisted the present case in Crime No.202 of2022. So, subsequently, the bail was cancelled by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.10559 and 10561 of 2020 on 31.03.2023, considering the registration of thispresent case in Crime No.202 of 2022. However, the petitioners were granted bail bythe Principal Sessions Court, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2023, dated 24.04.2023.4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025Subsequently, the same was cancelled by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.16237 of 2023,dated 06.09.2024. The petitioners moved Crl.A.(MD)Nos.359, 346, 360 and 326 of2025 before this Court, in which the petitioners were granted bail in the case relatingto Crime No.39 of 2020 on 09.04.2025 and directed for disposal of both cases by jointtrial. The petitioners filed the petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.784, 785 and 786 of 2025 andCrl.M.P.No.140 of 2025 before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and the samewere dismissed on 04.03.2025 and 15.05.2025, respectively. The petitioners are injudicial custody for more than 860 days. Since both cases were taken on cognizanceon filing charge sheet, there is no question of tampering evidence. The deceasedSuresh who was injured in the previous case was alleged to have been murdered bysomebody, the petitioners were roped as accused because of previous case. Thepetitioners have not committed the offence. As there are number of accused in bothcases and they have engaged different advocates considering their overtacts, thetrial of the cases would take more time. The petitioners are ready to cooperate withthe trial and also to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and they are alsoready to stay far away. Therefore, the petitioners may be granted bail.4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for therespondent police strongly objected the bail petition and submitted that the5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025occurrences took place upon land dispute. The petitioners were granted bail inprevious case in Crime No.39 of 2020 specifically not to tamper with or threaten thewitnesses. But, violating the conditions, the petitioners murdered the ocular witness,namely the deceased Suresh, who was injured in previous case. The InvestigatingOfficer properly investigated the case and laid a charge sheet in this case. Thepetitioners are having number of previous cases. The petitioners' contentionthat they are not involved in this case will be decided by the trial Court oncompletion of trial. The petitioners have no valid reason for bail. Hence, thepetition may be dismissed.5. The learned counsel for the intervening petitioner submitted the samearguments placed by the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and furthersubmitted that at the instance of intervening petitioner by filing Crl.O.P(MD)No.16237 of 2023, this Court elaborately discussed and passed order on 06.09.2024thereby, cancelled the bail granted in favour of the petitioners by the PrincipalSessions Court, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2023. Since this Court had alreadycancelled their bail, the petitioners again filed petitions one after another withoutany valid reason before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and before this Court.The petitioners have not challenged the cancellation of bail so far and so, the6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025petitioners are not entitled to bail. 6. Heard and perused the available records. The petitioners' side filed datesand events and the respondent's side also filed list of previous cases registeredagainst the petitioners. This Court has already dealt with the facts andcircumstances of the cases in various kinds of petitions filed by thepetitioners/accused as well as by the defacto complainants in both cases. So,there is no need to discuss elaborately once again the same facts.7. No doubt, the petitioners are arrayed as A1, A2 and A4 in this caseregistered in Crime No.202 of 2022. The occurrence took place on 18.12.2022, aftergranting bail to the petitioners in earlier case in Crime No.39 of 2020. There is nodispute that the deceased Suresh and his father Dharmarajan wereinjured/witnesses in that earlier case in Crime No.39 of 2020. On perusal of records,the petitioners were granted bail in the earlier case in Crime No.39 of 2020 withstringent conditions. While cancelling bail in Crime No.39 of 2020, this Courtobserved in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.10559 and 10561 of 2020 in its order that the murderof the victim was also said to have taken place upon the same land dispute reasonand murdered the deceased Suresh (injured/witness in Crime No.39 of 2020) was7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025said to have murdered by the petitioners along with co-accused on 18.12.2022,nearly after two years of coming out of bail which showed the petitioners' characterand attitude and strong enmity and hatred maintained by them two years long.However, they are again granted bail in preferring Crl.A.(MD)Nos.359, 346 and 360and 326 of 2025 before this Court by its order passed on 09.04.2025 in the caserelated to Crime No.39 of 2020. 8. On perusal of records, though the petitioners were granted bail by thePrincipal Sessions Court, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2023 on 24.04.2023 inconnection with this case in Crime No.202 of 2022, the same was cancelled by thisCourt while passing order in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16237 of 2023 on 06.09.2024. Aftercancellation of bail by this Court by order, dated 06.09.2024 passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16237 of 2023, the petitioners have not filed any material to show that they havepreferred any appeal against the cancellation of bail. These facts are not disputed bythe petitioners. The petitioners have filed the petition after petition seeking for bailbefore the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai and the same were dismissed. Now,the petitioners have moved before this Court by way of this petition once againseeking for bail. 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 20259. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued guidelinesfor disposal of bail applications reported in 2022 (3) MWN (Cr.)145 (SC). As perguidelines, bail applications for the offences punishable with death, imprisonmentfor life have to be decided on merits on case to case basis, keeping in view of generalprinciple of law. When the bail is a general rule, it is not automatic in seriousoffences and bail should not be granted merely on the ground of long incarceration.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized in several cases that the Court has toconsider the seriousness of the crime and the potential risk of granting bail in case ofbrutal murder. 10. The petitioners are involved in the heinous, brutal murder of deceasedSuresh, who was an ocular witness in the earlier case in Crime No.39 of 2020registered against the petitioners. Mere long period incarceration of petitioners isnot ground for granting bail as held in (2004) 7 SCC 528 (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar /v/ Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. and 2007 ALL SCR 753 (Rajesh RanjanYadav @ Pappu Yadav /v/ CBI through its Director. The petitioners are involvedin a heinous nature of murder case, who are said to have murdered the injuredwitness of earlier case. The second occurrence happened after coming out of bail,which shows their attitude, as already stated supra. It is an admitted fact that both9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025cases are directed to be tried jointly. Therefore, considering the overall facts andcircumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. The petitionhas no merit and the same deserves dismissal. 11. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently,the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 09/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VSDTo1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 20254. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 CC to M/s.DR.R.ALAGUMANI, Advocate ( SR-7337[I] dated 09/07/2025 ) ORDER IN Crl.O.P(MD)No.9049 of 2025and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.7336 of 2025 Date :09/07/2025 PR/31.07 .2025 11P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 11/11