D.Arulnithi v. The State Rep by

ORDER This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner, praying to Suspend the Sentence imposed in Crl.A.129 of 2018, on the file of the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore Page2 of 9 (Virudhachalam) dated 30.03.2026 against C.C.No.59 of 2014 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore dated 05.12.2018, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C of 2026 and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

2.By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 465, 471 and 420 read with Section 511 IPC and was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 465 of IPC; to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 471 of IPC; to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 420 read with 511 of IPC; and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for each offences.

3.Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.

4.This Court heard Mr.R.Vivekananthan appearing for the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the Respondent/State and considered their Page3 of 9 submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶5The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 465 and 468 of IPC. Mere existence of a disputed document is not sufficient. The Courts below had failed to independently re-appreciate the entire evidence on record as required in the first appeal against conviction and mechanically concurred with the findings of the trial Court without addressing the substantial grounds raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that there has been an unexplained and inordinate delay in filing the FIR from the date of complaint, the appellate Court choose to overlook this entirely. It is further submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the prosecution case suffers from serious delay. The alleged occurrence pertains to July 2011 whereas the complaint came to be lodged only in May 2012 after several rounds of departmental correspondence, consultations and legal opinions, thereby creating room for embellishment and improvement. 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.

6.It 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 Page4 of 9 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 prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition.

7.Several 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.

8.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State 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. Page5 of 9

9.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as the learned counsel 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 placed before it and during the Trial the Revision Petitioner was also on bail.

10.Further, 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.

11.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.

12.Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner, namely, Page6 of 9 D.Arulnithi, S/o.Duraisamy, on the following conditions:- ''(i) The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore 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), subject to furnishing an undertaking that he 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, 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 Page7 of 9 remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.''

¶13With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. 16-07-2026 rli To

¶1The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

¶2The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.

¶3The State Rep by CBCID Police, Police Station, Cuddalore.

¶4The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRLoMPoNo.o12218oofo2026 SHAMIMoAHMED,oJ. rli CRLoMPoNo.o12218oofo2026 IN CRLoRCoNO.o1419oOFo2026 16-07-2026 Page8oofo9 Page9 of 9

Page1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED in CRL RC NO. 1419 OF 2026 D.Arulnithi S/o. Duraisamy, 164/68-2, Main Road, Tittagudi(T.K) and (Post), Cuddalore District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by CBCID Police, Police Station, Cuddalore, Crime No.1/2012. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: To Suspend the Sentence imposed in Crl.A.129 of 2018, on the file of the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore (Virudhachalam) dated 30.03.2026 against C.C.No.59 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore dated 05.12.2018, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C of 2026 and enlarge the petitioner on bail, and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Vivekananthan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel Government Advocate (Crl. side)