Ponraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Ponraj ... Appellant in CrlA(MD)No.451 of 2026 Dharmaraj ...Appellant in CrlA(MD)No.549 of 2026 Vs.

1.The State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedasandur Sub-Division, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

[Crime No.94 of 2026] 3.Subbammal ... Respondents in both Appeals Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 14 - A of the SC/ST (POA) Act to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul in CrlMP(MD)No.73 of 2026, dated 07.04.2026, consequently release the appellant on bail connected to the FIR in Crime No.94 of 2026 on the file of the respondent No.2.

1/6

For Appellants : Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondent : Mr.V.Moushika, Nos.1 and R2 Government Advocate : Mrs.Subbammal - R3 Party-in-person in both appeals

ORDER

The appellants are accused Nos.8 and 6 respectively in Crime No.94 of 2026 on the file of the Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul district. They were arrested on 15.03.2026 and on 01.03.2026 respectively that they along with other accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of BNS r/w Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Totally there are 9 accused in this case. 2.The case of the prosecution is that there was money dispute between the deceased and A1 and on account of that on 26.02.2026, when the deceased was proceeding from Periyakottai to Vannipatti road along with his friend Kirubakaran, some persons have attacked him and caused fatal injuries. The First Information Report was registered on the complaint of the mother of the deceased / 3rd respondent, as against 4 named accused persons and thereafter, the appellants were added as accused through confession statement of the accused. The appellant in CrlA(MD)No.451 of 2/6

2026 /A8 is a police constable, said to have concealed the weapon used in the commission of offence. The appellant in CrlA(MD)No.549 of 2026/ A6 is said to have guarded near the place of occurrence. 3.The learned counsel for the appellants submits the appellants have been implicated only through the confession statement and they are in jail for more than 82 days and 96 days respectively. He further submits the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed. The learned counsel has also relied on the orders of the trial court in Crime No.91 of 2026 with regard to the application filed by A7 and submits that A7 sister of A1 has been granted bail by the trial court. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the appellants be enlarged on bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submits that due to money dispute, the deceased in this case has been murdered. The appellants are also having some role in the commission of offence. According to the prosecution, A8 the Police Constable / relative of A1 has concealed the weapon used in the offence 3/6

and the other appellant /A6 was present in the scene of occurrence and watched the movements of others. She further submits that apart from this case, A8 is having one previous case in Crime No.186 of 2026, Dindigul Taluk Police Station registered for the offence under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 308(4), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPCEI Act and A6 is having one previous case under Section 103(1) of BNS.

5.This court has considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on record.

6.Due to the money dispute the deceased has been done to death. A8 is the police constable and he is involved in Crime No.186 of 2026 on the file of the Dindigul Taluk Police Station. The other accused A6 is also having a case under Section 103(1) of BNS. Considering the antecedents of the appellants, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellants. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

05.06.2026 DSK 4/6

To 1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedasandur Sub-Division, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

Copy to The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J., DSK 05.06.2026 6/6