Abu Bakkar v. State Rep by Inspector of Police,

ORDER This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner/sole accused, praying to suspend the sentence of the judgement made in C.A.No.425 of 2024 dated 04.03.2026 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai confirming the conviction and sentence made in Page2 of 8 CC.No.3192 of 2019 dated 06.03.2024 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2.By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the appellate Court, the Revision Petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323, 427, 506(i) of IPC. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 (i) IPC; and to undergo six months simple imprisonment and compensation of Rs.20,000/- to PW1 within a week, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further two months for the offence under Section 427 of IPC.

3.Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Crl. RC.No.1191 of 2026, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

4.This Court heard Mr.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, learned Government Advocate appearing for Page3 of 8 the Respondent/State and considered their submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

5.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the entire prosecution case is fundamentally arising out of landlord-tenant dispute relating to arrears of rent for just 11 months and the complaint itself clearly shows that the defacto complainant approached the accused only to demand rent and to compel him to vacate the premises, thereby giving a clear indication that the criminal case has been initiated as a pressure tactics in a civil dispute, which amounts to abuse of process of law. Further, the Courts below failed to appreciate that PW2 has not witnessed the entire occurrence and has only spoken about a limited part of the alleged incident, thereby making her evidence incomplete and insufficient to corroborate PW1. It was further argued that the judgment passed by the Court below was based on surmises and conjectures without considering the entire evidence on record.

¶6It is further argued that due to pendency of the criminal case before this High Court, there is a blinking chance that in the near future, this Criminal Revision Case will be finally heard and decided. It is further submitted that there are arguable points in this Criminal Revision Case and the Revision Petitioner has a fair chance of success in this Criminal Revision Case. Thus, the Page4 of 8 learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Case.

¶7Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the Revision Petitioner have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the Court, whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions, which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The Revision Petitioner undertake that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of Revision.

¶8The learned Government Advocate has opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and submits that the judgements passed by the Courts below are as per the law after considering the entire evidences and thus, the relief sought by the Revision Petitioner at this stage, be refused by this Court.

¶9Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate, this Court is Page5 of 8 of the view that the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the judgment was passed without considering the entire materials placed before it and during the Trial the Revision Petitioner was also on bail.

¶10Further, it is observed that when the accused had been under incarceration for sometime and when there are points in the Revision, which favour the accused, then the Courts should not shy from granting suspension of sentence, as the liberty of the individual would be at stake, if the revision results in acquittal at a later point of time. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odhisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 is of relevance.

¶11The Revision Petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the Revision, which require detailed appraisal. Further, the Revision is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Revision Petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶12Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner, namely, Abu Bakkar S/o. Shakul Hameed, on the following conditions:- Page6 of 8 ''(i) The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistreate, Saidapet, Chennai within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the Revision Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond, along with two sureties for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each, subject to furnishing an undertaking that she will co-operate in the hearing of the present Revision.

(ii) The Revision Petitioner and sureties shall affix their Photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the bond and the above said Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

(iii) The Petitioner shall appear before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistreate, Saidapet, Chennai once in every month, i.e., on 5th day of every month commencing from the month of August 2026 at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

(iv) On acceptance of his bail bond and sureties, the Trial Court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Revision.

(v) The realization of the fine amount, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.'' Page7 of 8

¶13With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. 21-07-2026 rli To

¶1The Inspector of Police R-8, Vadapalani Police Station, Chennai-26.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶3The I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶4The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. CRLoMPoNo.o9505oofo2026 SHAMIMoAHMED,oJ. rli CRLoMPoNo.o9505oofo2026 in CRLoRCoNO.o1191oofo2026 21-07-2026 Page8oofo8

Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED in CRL RC NO. 1191 of 2026 Abu Bakkar S/o.Shakul Hameed ..Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police R-8, Vadapalani Police Station, Chennai-26. ..Respondent Prayer : To suspend the sentence of the judgement made in C.A.No.425 of 2024 dated 04.03.2026 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai confirming the conviction and sentence made in CC.No.3192 of 2019 dated 06.03.2024 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Petition. For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Saravanakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, Government Advocate (Crl. side)