Madhankumar v. State Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED in Crl.R.C.No.1027 of 2026 Madhankumar ...
Revision Petitioner Vs State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station Crime No.1649 of 2012 ...
Respondent 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 on the Revision Petitioner, in Crl.A.No.19 of 2022, dated 27.03.2026, by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kanchipuram, confirming the Judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 05.07.2022, made in CC.No.386 of 2012, by the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition.
For Revision Petitioner :Mr. D.Magesh For Respondent : Mr. M.Dinesh, Govt. Advocate (crl.side) 1/8
ORDER
1.This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, by the Revision Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence, imposed on the Revision Petitioner, in Crl.A.19 of 2022, dated 27.03.2026, by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kanchipuram, confirming the Judgement of conviction and sentence and order, dated 05.07.2022, made in CC.No.386 of 2012, by the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Petition. 2.By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
The 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. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- was already paid by the petitioner. 3.Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Crl.RC.No.
2026, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending disposal of the Criminal Revision.
4.This Court heard Mr.D.Magesh, 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 accused and his brother in law namely Sugumar entered a wordy quarrel between themselves and in the course of which, when the defacto complainant tried to compromise them, the accused is alleged to have suddenly attacked him with knife and inflicted injuries on him and also threatened him. The evidence of PW1 is totally contradictory to the statement given by the PW1 to PW6-Doctor who treated PW1. Further the evidence of PW3 in his chief and cross, contains upside down contradictions. Both the Courts failed to consider the evidence of PW4 and PW5 are contradictory in nature and has no reliability. In the light of the above infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both the Courts below have failed to consider that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond any doubt. It was further 3/8
argued that the learned Trial Court as well as appellate Court also failed to notice the discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses and 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.
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 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 4/8
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 judgements 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 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. 10.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 5/8
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, Udhayakumar @ Udhaya, S/o.Subramani on the following conditions:- i.The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram 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 undertaking that he will co-operate in the hearing of the present Revision.
6/8
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 Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram 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.
iv.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.
With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. 01.06.2026 2/2 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking msr To 1.The Prl. District and Sessions Court, Kanchipuram 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
4.The Inspector of Police, Mangadu Police Station.
7/8
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
msr in Crl.R.C.No.1027 of 2026 01.06.2026 8/8