Sriram v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Sriram ... Appellant Vs.

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

2. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, (Crime No.161 of 2024)

3. Saravanan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Case/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to call for the records in pursuant to the Crl.M.P.No.870 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.220 of 2024 before the District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai District vide order dated 03.07.2025 and set aside the same and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.161 of 2024 pending on the file of the second respondent police.

For Appellant : Mr.T.Ananthasekar For Respondents For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai District, in Crl.M.P.No.870 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.220 of 2024, thereby dismissing the petition for bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution was that on 20.03.2024 at about 7.30 pm, when the third respondent and the deceased went to the house of one Ananthaaraj in their motorcycle, the accused waylaid them by their motor cycle and attacked them with deadly weapons. Unfortunately the deceased was heavily attacked by the accused persons, due to which, he died on the spot. In fact, the third respondent also suffered cut injury and he was taken to hospital. On the complaint lodged by the third respondent, the second respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.161 of 2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 326, 149, 307, 302, 120(b) of IPC r/w. 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and

Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. In pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.04.2024. Therefore, the appellant filed petition for bail and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the appellant filed the present appeal.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that already A11, who is also standing in the same footing as of the appellant, was granted bail by the trial court. He further submitted that the deceased was an accused in the murder case registered in crime No.636 of 2022. Due to previous enmity, false case had been foisted as against the appellant and hence he prayed to grant bail to the appellant. 4.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that there are totally 11 accused, in which the appellant is arrayed as A4. It is a case of retaliation. Further this Court already dismissed the early appeal filed by the appellant in Crl.A.No.535 of 2025 dated 06.06.2025.

5.

The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit

that he is one of the victims and he has sustained grievous injuries due to the attack made by the accused persons. If the appellants are let out on bail, they will definitely do away the life of the third respondent, since it is a case of retaliation murder.

6.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7.

There are totally 11 accused in which, the appellant is arrayed as fourth accused. The appellant along with other accused persons had committed very cruel murder on the deceased. That apart, another person also sustained grievous injury. Further, if the appellant let out on bail, his life also will be in danger, since it is a case of retaliation. The judicial custody is the safe custody of the appellant. Further this Court already dismissed the earlier appeal filed by the appellant and there is no change in circumstance to grant bail. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and this Court is not inclined to entertain this criminal appeal.

8.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 08.08.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order rts To

1. The District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station.

4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts 08.08.2025