Murugan @ Murugaesan v. The State Rep By, Inspector of Police,

ORDER

¶1This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, by the Revision Petitioners, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioners, in Crl.A.No.15/2024, dated 12.03.2026 by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahila Court, Ariyalur, confirming the Judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 11.06.2024, made in CC.No.221 of 2017, by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Jayamkondam, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

¶2By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioners were convicted and sentenced for the offences as follows: Accused Conviction Sentence Petitioner U/s.324 IPC To

undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, each, in default, each to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment.

¶3The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, by its impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order.

¶4Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Crl.RC.No.1400 of 2026 along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶5This Court heard Mr. K.Rahul, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent and considered their submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶6The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the case of the prosecution is that on account of a money dispute that arose between the defact complainant and the mother of A1, the petitioners herein/A2 and A3 along with other accused are alleged to have attacked the defacto complainant with reaper and defacto complainant's son on his left thigh and left shoulder and caused simple injuries and they have also threatened him with dire consequences. He further submitted that there was a lapse of 4 days in lodging the FIR and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The alleged reeper, which was used to attack the defacto complainant was not seized. PW5 the sketch and observation mahazar witness was turned hostile. There is contradiction between the evidence of PW2 and PW7. In the light of the above infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for the alleged seizure and recovery of material objects, it is highly unsafe to place reliance on those evidences to invoke presumption against the Revision Petitioner. The crystal part of the evidences was not at all assessed by both the Courts below. It was further argued that the judgment passed by both the Courts below was based on surmises and conjectures without considering the entire evidence on record.

¶7It is further argued that due to pendency of the criminal cases 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 learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶8Several 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 Petitioners undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of Revision.

¶9The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent has opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and submits that the judgements passed by the Courts below are as per the law, after considering the entire evidence and thus, the relief sought by the Revision Petitioners, at this stage, be refused by this Court.

10.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners as well as the learned Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the judgment was passed without considering the entire materials place before it and during the Trial the Revision Petitioner was also on bail.

11.Further, it is observed that when the accused have 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.

12.The 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.

13.Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioners, namely, 1. Murugan @ Murugaesan. Son of Ramamoorthi and 2. Kamaraj, Son of Mahalingam on the following conditions:- i. The Revision Petitioners shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate I1, Jayamkondam, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the Revision Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond, along with two sureties for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each , subject to furnishing undertaking that they will co-operate in the hearing of the present Revision. ii. The Revision Petitioners 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 realization of fine amount, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision. iv. The Petitioners shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Jayamkondam, once in every month, ie., on the first working day, commencing from the month of August 2026, at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. v. On acceptance of his bail bonds and sureties, the Trial Court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Revision.

¶14With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.

09.07.2026 (2/2) Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No msr To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate II, Jayamkondam

¶2The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahila Court, Ariyalur

¶3The Inspector of Police, Udayarpalayam Police Station, Ariyalur District.ion, Salem District.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SHAMIM AHMED, J. msr Crl.M.P.No.11790 of 2026 in Crl.RC.1400 of 2026

09.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 09.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED Crl.M.P.No.11790 of 2026 in Crl.RC.1400 of 2026 1. Murugan @ Murugaesan 2. Kamaraj ...Revision Petitioners Vs The State, by the Inspector of Police, Udayarpalayam Police Station, Ariyalur District. Cr.No.76/2015 Respondent Prayer:- This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner, in Crl.A.No.15 of 2024, dated 12.03.2026, by the I Addl. District and Sessions Court, Salem, confirming the Judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 11.06.2024 made in CC.No.221 of 2017, by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Jayamkondam, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition. For Revision Petitioners : Mr.K.Rahul For Respondent : Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel Govt. Advocate (crl.side)