Vinothraj v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Vinothraj ... Appellant Vs.

1. State Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mailaduthurai Sub - Division, Mailaduthurai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Mailaduthurai District.

(Crime No.232 of 2025)

3. Ramesh ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14 A of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to call for the entire records in connection with Crl.M.P.No.1446 of 2025 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Myiladuthurai dated 01.11.2025 and set aside the order of bail in Crl.M.P.No.1446 of 2025 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 01.11.2025. For Appellant : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar Page No.1 of 6

For R1 and R2 : Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R3 : No Appearance

JUDGMENT

The appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.M.P.No.1446 of 2025 granting bail to the 3rd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent is an accused in Crime No.232 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 232(1), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 altered to 232(1), 351(2) of BNS r/w 3(2) (Va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The allegation against the 3rd respondent is that he threatened the petitioner and other witnesses not to depose in a murder case which pending trial in Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2025 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai and hence, he is liable for the aforesaid offences.

3. The trial Court granted bail by the impugned order on the ground that the 3rd respondent was in custody for nearly 60 days. Page No.2 of 6

4. The petitioner has challenged the said order mainly on the ground that the 3rd respondent is involved in a serious offence and has not complied with the conditions imposed by the trial Court.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, would submit that all the witnesses have deposed in support of the prosecution in S.C.No. 28 of 2025 and the apprehension expressed by the petitioner no longer exists. He would further submit that the 3rd respondent has complied with the conditions as directed by the trial Court and the investigation in this case has been completed and the final report has also been filed, which is taken on file in Spl. S.C. No. 96 of 2025.

6. Though notice has been served on the 3rd respondent, none has entered appearance.

7. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has complied with the conditions to appear before the respondent police for a period of 30 days. The police have completed the investigation and filed the final report. The other ground raised by the petitioner for cancellation is that the 3rd respondent is involved Page No.3 of 6

in a heinous crime of threatening the witnesses. It is seen that the witnesses have already deposed in S.C. No.28 of 2025. The petitioner was in custody for a period of 60 days. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1446 of 2025 and hence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

27.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Mac To

1. The District and Sessions Court, Myiladuthurai

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mailaduthurai Sub - Division, Mailaduthurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Mailaduthurai District.

Page No.4 of 6

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.5 of 6

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Mac 27.01.2026 Page No.6 of 6