Sudhakar v. The State Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

ORDER This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated

06.07.2026 made in Crl MP No.769 of 2026 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri and enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.38 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Panchapalli Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶2The appellant, who is arrayed as A4 in Crime No.38 of 2026 registered for the offence under Section 103(1) of BNS r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016, was arrested and remanded on 06.05.2026. Thereafter, he filed a bail application before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.769 of 2026. By order dated 06.07.2026, the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, dismissed the said bail application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

¶3Earlier, when the case was listed for hearing on 23.07.2026, finding that the petitioner also facing charges under SC/ST Act cases, notice was ordered to the third respondent/victim/de facto complainant. After service of notice, it was found that summons to the de facto complainant was served and the de facto complainant made strong objection for granting bail to the appellant and further she requested to appoint a legal aid counsel to argue the case. In view of the same, this Court appointed Ms.K.Meena as Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent.

¶4Today, the learned counsel for appellant, learned Government Advocate for first and second respondents and learned Legal Aid Counsel for third respondent are present.

¶5The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in respect of the co-accused in the very same Crime No.38 of 2026, this Court vide order

07.07.2026 in Crl.A.No.765 of 2026, granted bail subject to certain conditions. Hence, the present appeal has been filed seeking similar relief.

¶6The learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the third respondent strongly opposed the appellant's contention stating that Jayammal is aged above 50 years. The deceased never misbehaved with Jayammal. The appellant and the deceased were friends, they had some differences of opinion. The deceased was initially taken in a bike, questioned and assaulted. Thereafter, again he was taken in a bike to an isolated rocky area, where the deceased was assaulted on his head and chest, with weapon. All the accused with common intention committed murder, thereafter they left the body and escaped. Initially, a case was registered as suspicious death, later on the arrest and confession of the accused, the case unravelled. The de facto complainant, the mother of the deceased, has got strong objection for granting bail to the appellant. She further submitted that the accused is granted bail, they would further threaten the family members of the deceased.

¶7The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that initially, the case was registered for offence under Section 194(1) of BNSS, later, on suspicion, the accused was apprehended and on the confession of the accused, the case unravelled. In this case, six persons committed murder, the appellant is arrayed as A4. As regards this appellant, he used his hands and hit the deceased and also kicked him. The Post-mortem report confirms that the death is due to blunt injury on the head and chest. She further submitted that now in this case, investigation completed, charge sheet filed 29.06.2026.

¶8Considering the submission made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner not used any weapon. He used his hands to beat the deceased and also kicked him. It is also seen that in this case, the death was due to blunt injury on the head and chest. Further, in this case, now investigation completed and charge sheet filed. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

¶9Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions;

(a) the appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri;

(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(c) the appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on every Monday till the charge sheet is taken on file, thereafter on all hearing dates without fail;

(d) The appellant shall not give any inconvenience or trouble knowingly or unknowingly to the third respondent, failing which, the bail shall be cancelled without any further reference.

(e) the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(f) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶10In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.07.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.769 of 2026 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶11This Court appreciates the efforts taken by Ms.K.Meena, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appointed by this Court for third respondent, for her meticulous review of the case records with all necessary particulars and details. The Legal Services Authority concerned is directed to pay the prescribed remuneration to her. 27-07-2026 Jd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Note: Issue order copy today i.e., on 28.07.2026. To

¶1The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.

¶2The Sub Jail, Dharmapuri.

¶3The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District.

¶4The Inspector of Police Panchapalli Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

¶5The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. jd 27-07-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Sudhakar Appellant(s) Vs 1. The State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District. 2.State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Panchapalli Police Station, Dharmapuri District. 3.Rani Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), to set aside the order in Crl MP No.769 of 2026 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri dated 07-07-2026 and enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.38 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Panchapalli Police Station, Dharmapuri District. For Appellant : Mr.R.K.Gandhi For Respondent(s): Ms.Sharada Vivek Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R1 & R2 Ms.K.Meena, Legal Aid Counsel for R3