High Court · 2025

Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 20251.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur.2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station, Karur District. (Crime No.175 of 2025)3.Nanthini ... Respondents in all the appealsCommon Prayer : These Criminal Appeals filed under Section 14A of SC/ST Act, to call for the records of order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1395 of 2025, 1391 of 2025 and 1394 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 on the file of District and Sessions Court, Karur and set aside the same and pleased to grant bail to the appellants / accused Nos.8, 5, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 in Crime No.175 of 2025 on the file of second respondent police by allowing these criminal appeals.(in all the appeals)For Appellants: Mr.S.SankarFor Respondents: Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 & R2 Mr.C.M.Arumugam for R3COMMON JUDGMENTThese Criminal Appeals are directed against the orders passed in 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 2025Crl.M.P.Nos.1395 of 2025, 1391 of 2025 and 1394 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Karur, dismissing the applications for bail filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S.2. The appellants in these three criminal appeals are the accused 8, 5, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 (hereinafter referred as per their rank) in Crime No.175 of 2025 on the file of the second respondent police.3. The prosecution's case is that Raja and his mother Rani owned 4 acres of land in Vangal river poramboke, adjacent to Booma's 50 cents of land. The third respondent's husband, Manivasagam, had negotiated to purchase Booma's land and finalized the sale price. However, the accused 1 and 2 interfered, offering more money and creating disputes. On 13.07.2025, at around 7:30 p.m., when Manivasagam and his brothers, Yogeshwaran and Anandan, were on the land, the accused arrived armed with deadly weapons, claiming ownership. A dispute ensued, and the accused attacked Manivasagam, who later succumbed to his injuries. Four others sustained grievous injuries while intervening.3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 20254. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the third respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.175 of 2025 against 7 persons and others for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 127(2), 109, 103 and 351(3) BNS and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 altered into Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 118(1), 127(2), 109, 103, 351(3) and 61 BNS, Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 5. The accused No.8, accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 and accused Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 have moved separate bail applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.1395 of 2025, 1391 of 2025 and 1394 of 2025 and the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karur, upon perusing the records and on hearing both the sides, passed the impugned orders dated 01.09.2025 dismissing all the three bail applications. Aggrieved by the impugned dismissal orders, the accused Nos.8, 5, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 have preferred the present three appeals. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the accused herein are innocents and they were no way connected 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 2025with the alleged occurrence and that they have been falsely implicated in the above case. He would further contend that the eighth accused was arrested on 14.07.2025 and other accused were arrested on 15.07.2025 and they are in judicial custody for the past 92 days. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the accused had committed brutal murder and also caused grievous injuries to four persons, that the injured Yogeshwaran was again admitted in the hospital and underwent a surgery and is taking treatment in the hospital, that all the accused are having bad antecedents and that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed their bail applications. He would further submit that the accused are not entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case, if the Court is inclined to grant bail, all the accused may be directed to stay at a distant place imposing strict conditions. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that due to the land dispute, the accused had committed brutal murder and caused grievous injuries to four persons, that except the eighth accused, all the accused are having 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 2025previous cases and that therefore, they are having serious objections to grant bail to the accused. 9. It is not in dispute that the accused 8 and 5 were detained under the Goondas Act in TDPA Nos.316 of 2025 and 318 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025 and 14.08.2025 respectively. The accused 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 were detained under the Goondas Act in TDPA Nos.317, 319, 314, 315 and 320 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025, 14.08.2025, 12.08.2025, 12.08.2025 and 14.08.2025 respectively. But the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that except the accused 1 and 2, detention orders against other accused were revoked vide Government Orders dated 24.09.2025.10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the investigating officer, mistakenly believing a charge sheet had to be filed within 60 days, sought an extension from the Sessions Judge. However, the petition was not taken on file. The officer subsequently filed Crl.M.P.No.9258 of 2025 on 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 202513.10.2025, seeking further time, which is pending. The requisition states that the investigating officer needs to arrest accused 10 and 11, and forensic reports are awaited. Given this, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the investigation appears near completion.11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the eighth accused is not having any previous cases, but the fifth accused is having three pending cases in Crime No.319 of 2021 under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC, Crime No.444 of 2023 under Section 387 IPC and Crime No.495 of 2024 under Sections 117(3), 296(b), 351(2) BNS r/w Section 4 of TNPWH Act. He would further submit that the third accused is having two pending cases, one in Crime No.163 of 2022 under Sections 294(b), 323,324 and 506(2) IPC and the other in Crime No.34 of 2024 under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 341 and 506(2) IPC, that the fourth accused is having one pending case in Crime No.68 of 2025 under Sections 109 and 296(b) BNS, that the sixth accused is having two pending cases one in Crime No.396 of 2024 under Section 303(2) BNS r/w Section 21(1) of MMDR Act and the other 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 2025one in Crime No.572 of 2021 under Sections 294(b), 307, 324, 326 and 506(2) IPC and that the seventh accused is having two previous cases one in Crime No.396 of 2024 under Section 303(2) BNS r/w Section 21(1) of MMDR Act and the other one in Crime No.98 of 2025 under Section 75 of TNCP Act. 12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the ninth accused is having 12 previous cases, which are as follows;S.No.Crime numberOffences1.440 of 2021294(b), 324, 326 and 506(2) IPC2.198 of 2024294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC3.224 of 2024392 and 397 IPC4.305 of 2024115(2), 118(1), 296(b) and 351(3) BNS5.349 of 2024115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 296(b) and 351(3) BNS6.375 of 2024115(2), 118(1), 126(2) 296(b) and 351(3) BNS7.492 of 2025NDPS Act8.58 of 2025131, 296(b) and 351(3) BNS9.128 of 2025NDPS Act10.222 of 2025115(2), 118(1), 126(1), 196(2), 191(3), 296(b) and 351(3) BNS11.381 of 2022109, 120(b), 147, 148, 149, 302, 324 and 449 IPC12.194 of 2024147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 341 and 506(2) IPC8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 202513. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the main reasons canvassed for dismissing the bail applications by the learned Sessions Judge are the pendency of the previous cases and their detention under the Goondas Act. 14. Considering the case's facts and circumstances, noting that accused 8, 3, 4, 6, and 7 have been in judicial custody for over 90 days, and investigation appears complete with detention orders revoked, this Court grants them bail, taking into account the nature of pending cases against them. However, given the seriousness of pending cases against accused 5 and 9, including murder cases, this Court deems it inappropriate to grant bail to them at this stage.15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2025 is allowed, the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.1055 of 2025 is dismissed and the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2025 is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 01.09.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.1395 of 2025 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Karur, is set aside and the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.1394 of 2025 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 2025Karur, is set aside as against the appellants 1 to 4. The appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2025 and the appellants 1 to 4 in Crl.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2025 are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the District and Sessions Court, Karur, and on further conditions that:[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Sessions Judge may obtain a copy of their valid identity card to ensure their identity;[b] in Crl.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2025, the appellant shall stay at Thanjavur and appear before the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur District, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;[c] in Crl.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2025, the first appellant shall stay at Chengalpattu and appear before the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Town Police Station, Chengalpattu District, the second appellant shall stay at Tiruvallur and appear before the Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Tiruvallur District, the third appellant shall stay at Thiruttani and appear before the Inspector of Police, D1 Police Station, Thiruttani, 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 2025Thiruvallur District and the fourth appellant shall stay at Kanchipuram and appear before the Inspector of Police, Big Kanchipuram Police Station, Kanchipuram District, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;[d] the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2025 and the appellants 1 to 4 in Crl.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2025 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[e] the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2025 and the appellants 1 to 4 in Crl.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2025 shall co-operate with the investigation.[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Special Judge/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2025 and the appellants 1 to 4 in Crl.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2025 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.1054 of 2025 and the appellants 1 to 4 in Crl.A.(MD)No.1056 of 2025 released on bail by the learned Special 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].11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 2025[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 268-A BNS. 17.10.2025NCC :yes/NoIndex :yes/NoInternet:yes/NocsmTo1.The District and Sessions Judge, Karur.2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur.4.The Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station, Karur District.5.The Inspector of Police, Big Kanchipuram Police Station, Kanchipuram District.6.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Tiruvallur District.12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 20257.The Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Town Police Station, Chengalpattu District.8.The Inspector of Police, D1 Police Station, Thiruttani, Thiruvallur District.9.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)Nos.1054 to 1056 of 2025K.MURALI SHANKAR ,J. csmPre-Delivery Common Judgment made inCrl.A.(MD)Nos.1054, 1055 and 1056 of 2025Dated : 17.10.202514/14