Chandramohan v. The State Rep By Deputy Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.A.Nos.730 of 2025 & 737 of 2025 Chandramohan ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.730 of 2025 Mohandass ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.737 of 2025 Vs

1. State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayilduthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai

2. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai

3. Saravanan ... Respondents in both the appeals PRAYER in Crl.A.No.730 of 2025: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 to set aside the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.444 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.220 of 2024 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai and to enlarge the appellant on bail in Spl.S.C.No.220 of 2024 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai. PRAYER in Crl.A.No.737 of 2025: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section

14A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 to set aside the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.444 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.220 of 2024 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai and to enlarge the appellant on bail in Spl.S.C.No.220 of 2024 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai. Crl.A.No.730 of 2025 For Appellant : Mr. R.Ragavendran For Respondents : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor Crl.A.No.737 of 2025 For Appellant : Mr. K.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor C O M M O N J U D G M E N T Since the issue involved in both the Appeals are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common Judgment is being passed.

2. Both the appeals are preferred by the appellants /A.1 and A.10 against the order of dismissal of their bail petitions respectively.

3. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons due to previous enmity waylaid the defecto complainant's two wheeler and attaked the defacto complainant and deceased brutally with deadly weapons and committed murder of the deceased in daylight. Therefore, FIR has been registered in Crime No.161 of 2024 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 326, 324, 149, 307, 302, 120(b) IPC read with 25(1)(b) of Arms Act and Sections

3(1)(r) 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act (POA) Amendment Act and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.220 of 2024.

4. In fact, the 1st application was dismissed by the trial court on 19.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2025 and petitioners have preferred 2nd application for bail before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.M.P.No.444 of 2025 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 09.04.2025. In the meantime, the appellant in Crl.A.No.737 of 2025 preferred Crl.A.No.258 of 2025 before this Court to set aside the order dated 19.2.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2025 and this Court dismissed the same by directing the trial court to examine all the witnesses on day-to-day basis and ordered to dispose of the case within a reasonable period. As against the dismissal of the 2nd bail petition dated 09.04.2025, the appellants, have come up with the present appeals.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though this Court specifically directed the trial court to complete the trial within a reasonable period, the trial court has failed to complete the trial so far and the appellants are in incarceration for a quite long time, thereby pleaded to allow the present appeals.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial is

pending only due to the delay caused by the accused, namely, the appellants since they did not cross examine the prosecution witness.

7. Considering the above said facts and circumstaces and taking note of the fact that on one hand, the appellants are causing delay before the trial court on completing the trial and on the other hand, the appellants have filed another application for grant of bail on the ground of non-compliance of the order passed by the trial court, therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the petition and therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.

Accordingly, the present Crl.Appeals are dismissed. 30.06.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order ssd

To 1.The District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai

2. The District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

3. State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayilduthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai

4. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai 5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ssd

Crl.A.Nos.730 of 2025 & 737 of 2025 30.06.2025