← Library
Madras High CourtCRL MP/9007/2026ordered

Dhurvasan v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

2026-06-23Honourable Mr.Justice Shamim Ahmed9 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED IN CRL RC NO. 1127 OF 2026 Dhurvasan S/o. Govindharaj, No.16/2, Visalatchi Compound, Selvapuram Virivu, 3rd Street, Karumarapalayam, Mannarai, Tiruppur.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur.

..Respondent(s) Prayer:- This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying to suspend the sentence imposed by the Learned Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of SC and ST Cases, Tiruppur in Crl A. No.324 of 2024 confirming the Judgment and Order of Conviction dated 24-06-2024 passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Court for Trial, Tirupur in S.C. No.199 of 2021 and enlarge the petitioner on bail and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and pending disposal of the main Crl.Appeal and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M. Soundar Vijay Arul Ram For Respondent(s):

Mr.M.Dinesh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, by the Revision Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner, in C.A. No. 324 of 2024, dated 20.02.2026, by the learned Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of SC and ST Cases, Tiruppur, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence and order, dated 24.06.2024, made in S.C. No. 199 of 2021, by the learned Principal Subordinate Court for Trial, Tiruppur, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition. 2.By the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner (A1) was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.

500/-, in default to undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs. 4,500/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 IPC, with both sentences ordered to run concurrently. The target judgment of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, by its impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and order. It is submitted that during the trial and the subsequent appeal, the petitioner's sentence was suspended, and the petitioner is not currently in jail.

3.Challenging the above said judgment of conviction and sentence and order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision Petition along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision. 4.This Court heard Mr.M. Soundar Vijay Arul Ram, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent and considered their submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

5.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the prosecution case rests on an alleged incident where the petitioner (A1) purportedly attacked the victim (PW2) with a knife following a dispute. It is argued that the courts below failed to notice material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as significant procedural gaps. Specifically, the weapon of offence was never properly identified, and the medical evidence suggests the injury could have been caused by a simple fall. Furthermore, it is contended that the prosecution failed to examine any independent public witnesses, relying instead on highly interested family members whose conflicting accounts and previous enmity make their presence at the scene highly doubtful. In the light of these material infirmities and major

contradictions, it was argued that the judgments passed by both the Courts below were based on surmises and conjectures without considering the entire crystal part of the 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 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. 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 erroneous conclusion of criminal negligence 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 undertakes 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 (Criminal Side) for the Respondent has opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and submits that the judgments passed by the Courts below are as per the law, after considering the entire evidence and thus, the relief sought by the Revision Petitioner, at this stage, be refused by this Court. 9.Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner 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 properly appreciate the evidence on record regarding weapon identification and the positioning of the parties, and the judgment was passed without adequately considering the entire materials placed before it.

It is also noted that during the Trial and during the pendency of the appeal, the Revision Petitioner was on bail. 10.Further, it is observed that when the accused have been under threat of incarceration 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 Odisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 is of relevance.

11.The Revision Petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the Revision, particularly concerning the reliability of the purported eye-witnesses and weapon discrepancies, 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 the Revision Petitioner on the following conditions:- i. The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the Principal Subordinate Court for Trial, Tiruppur 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 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 realization of fine, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.

iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the Principal Subordinate Court for Trial, Tiruppur once in every month, ie., on 3rd day of every month commencing from the month of July 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.

13.With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. 23-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SHA To 1.The Inspector of Police Tiruppur North Police Station,Tiruppur.

2.The Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of SC and ST Cases, Tiruppur. 3.The Principal Subordinate Court for Trial, Tirupur.

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

SHA IN CRL RC NO. 1127 OF 2026 23-06-2026