Saleem v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA 1.
Saleem 2.
Vignesh @ Vicky @ Kunda Balu ...Appellants Vs.
1.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhavani Sub-Division, Chithode Police Station, Erode District.
2.
The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Erode District.
Crime No.137 of 2025.
3.
Saranya
...Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking to set aside the order dated 25.03.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.408 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2025 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, and enlarge the appellants on bail, pending trial before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in Crime No.137 of 2025.
1/8
For Appellants : Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan For Respondents : Ms.J.R.Archana, GA(Crl. Side), for R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Suryaprakash, for R3
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in Crl.M.P.No.408 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2025, dismissing the bail petition filed by the appellants.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
2.1 The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2025, while the deceased, Chanakya @ John, along with his wife Saranya/de facto complainant, was travelling by car from Salem towards Tiruppur, the appellants, along with other accused, intercepted and dashed their vehicle against the car of the deceased near Nasiyanur. The accused persons, having conspired together with the intent to commit murder, brutally assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons such as knives and machetes in the presence of his wife/de facto complainant, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot due to the multiple fatal injuries sustained during the attack.
2/8
2.2 Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.137 of 2025 came to be registered by the respondent police initially against one Jeevagan/A-1 and 9 others for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) & 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. During the course of the investigation, it was established that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste (SC) community and hence, the case was subsequently altered to one under Sections 49, 61(2), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) & 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 r/w. Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
After completion of investigation, the final report was filed against 14 persons, including the appellants herein, for the offences under Sections 109(1), 49, 61(2), 3(5), 103(1), 238(a), 336(3) & 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2025 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode. 2.3 The appellants herein filed a bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.408 of 2026.
said facts, dismissed the said bail petition. Challenging the same, the appellants have come up with the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:
3.1 The appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the alleged occurrence is on account of group rivalry and not on account of any communal enmity and even as per the prosecution, the specific allegation against the appellants is that they monitored the movements of the deceased and provided real-time information to A-1 and there is no overt act attributed to the appellants other than the alleged communication.
3.2 The co-accused have been granted bail by this Court, vide orders dated 11.03.2026 and 15.04.2026 made in Crl.A.Nos.1641 of 2025 & 370 of 2026 respectively. Hence, the impugned dismissal order may be set aside and the appellants may also be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for 1st and 2nd respondents, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the appellants are close associate of A-1. She specifically alleged that the appellants monitored the movements of the deceased and 4/8
his wife/de facto complainant and provided critical intelligence to A-1. Acting on the said information, A-1, along with the other accused persons, intercepted the vehicle of the deceased, dashed against it, and committed a brutal murder in broad daylight. After committing the murder, the accused persons engaged in acts of rioting to terrorise the witnesses. The appellants' involvement in the conspiracy is evidenced by the confession statement of A-1, which details how the appellants tracked the deceased. Hence, she vehemently opposed the grant of bail by citing the previous cases pending against the respective appellants, the heinous nature of the crime, and the potential threat to the de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant, while reiterating the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for 1st and 2nd respondents, vehemently opposed for allowing this appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials available on record and also taking note of the fact that the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court and also the period of incarceration undergone by the appellants, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 25.03.2026. 5/8
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in Crl.M.P.No.408 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2025 is set aside and the appellants 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 learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, and on further conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the appellants shall appear before the trial court, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;
[c] the appellants shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the appellants shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellants in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and 6/8
the appellants 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];
[f] If the appellants thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
9. With the above directions, this criminal appeal stands allowed.
29.04.2026 skt NCC : Yes/No To:
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode.
2. The District Jail, Tiruppur.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhavani Sub-Division, Chithode Police Station, Erode District.
4. The Inspector of Police, Chithode Police Station, Erode District.
5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
7/8
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
skt 29.04.2026 8/8