Pandi @ Attack Pandi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on: 06.01.2026
Pronounced on: 20.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S. SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD) NO. 16092 of 2025:
V.P.Pandi @ Attack Pandi
...Petitioner
Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police CBCID, Madurai District.
(Crime No. 11 of 2015) Originally registered at C-2, Subramniayapuram Police Station (L&O), Madurai City, Madurai.
(Crime No.68 of 2013)
...Respondent
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS Prayer: Bail in S.C.No.562 of 2018 on the file of the Learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai.
CRL OP(MD) NO. 16090 of 2025:
V.P.Pandi @ Attack Pandi
...Petitioner
Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai City.
(Crime No. 1017 of 2015)
...Respondent
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS Prayer: Bail in S.C.No.456 of 2016 on the file of the Learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai.
In both cases:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.R. Raghunathan for Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.S.Manoj, Government Advocate (Crl.side) COMMON ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.09.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 212, 216, 302, 120(B) and 109, of IPC read with Sections 149 & 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.11 of 2015 on the file of CBCID police [earlier crime No. 68 of 2013 on the file of Subramniayapuram Police Station (L&O)], seeks bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16092 of 2025.
2. The petitioner was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 120(b), 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC read with Sections 149 and 34 of IPC in Crime No. 1017 of 2015 on the file of K.Pudur Police Station, seeks bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16090 of 2025.
3. The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16092 of 2025 is that the defacto complainant one Manikandan son of Raju lodged a complaint before Subramniayapuram Police Station (L&O) on 31.01.2013 at about 20.15 hours stating that he was working as driver under one Suresh Babu @ Pottu Suresh for a period of four years. The complaint alleges that their car was waylaid by a TATA Ace vehicle and a two-wheeler, immediately several unknown persons armed with deadly weapons damaged the car and pulled his owner Suresh Babu from the car and attacked indiscriminately, due to which he succumbed to injuries. Hence the FIR was filed in Crime No.68 of 2013. Subsequently one Santhanam and 6 others had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate. Pursuant to their statements other accused were added and the case was transferred to CBCID in Crime No.11 of 2015. Then 11 accused were added including the petitioner / 1st accused, thereafter final report was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and is pending in SC No. 562 of 2018. The petitioner was arrested on 21.09.2015.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the deceased was having motive with several persons in and around Madurai District. Initially the petitioner's name was not found in the FIR, he was implicated based on confession statement of co-accused and according to the statement there is political vendetta with the deceased, hence through his relatives the deceased was alleged to have done to death. But the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence and he is an innocent. He seeks this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the prosecution submitted that the offences committed by the petitioner are serious in nature and there are several cases against the petitioner, hence he opposed bail.
6. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution alleges the petitioner conspired at Madurai along with other accused and in furtherance of such conspiracy committed a murder on 31.01.2013. And the prosecution relies on the evidence that the petitioner was absconding for two years and had used the credit card of the co-accused. The petitioner states the evidence are post to the alleged crime and there is no prior evidence, hence the conspiracy allegation has not evidence. This Court is of the considered opinion that the same ought to be
considered at the time of Trial and not at this stage.
7. The next contention of the prosecution is that the petitioner had committed another crime even while he was inside the prison. The petitioner's close associate namely Praveen, who is A18 in Crime No.11 of 2015 had attacked the defacto complainant in Crime No.1017 of 2015. The present bail applications are for Crime No. 1017 of 2015 and another for Crime No.11 of 2015 are taken up together. When the petitioner could commit such a crime while inside the prison, the petitioner if let out then it will be difficult to maintain the law & order problem. Further the petitioner is a History Sheeter having 20 previous cases and his previous antecedents are bad.
8. The next contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is languishing as under trial prisoner in prison for the past 10 years and the Trial has not started. Further all the co-accused were granted bail. On the other hand, the prosecution submitted that the petitioner and the other accused are using dilatory tactics by following pattern, hence the trial has been delayed. As on the date of filing the counter, even charges have not yet been framed due to such dilatory tactics pattern. This Court perused the records. It is seen that there are 18 accused, for every hearing at least two or more accused would be absent for the hearing by filing section 317 petition. Hence, the Trial Court could not even frame the charges from 06.09.2019
onwards, which is evident from the B-dairy produced before this Court. When the Bdiary was submitted before the Court on a previous hearing, this Court strictly directed the Trial Court to ensure the appearance of the all the accused and frame the charges. When the case was heard on 06.01.2026, it was submitted that based on the direction of this Court, the Trial Court had ensured the appearance of all the accused and had framed the charges on 09.12.2025. Further the Trial Court has posted the case for Trial on 27.01.2026. The Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Trial would be taken on day-to-day basis and the Trial would be completed within a period of three months.
9.Therefore, considering the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that bail cannot be considered at this stage. If granted, the petitioner and other accused would delay the Trial. Hence, the bail applications ought to be dismissed. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
10. The Trial Court is strictly directed to complete the Trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 20.01.2026 Tmg
To
1. The Inspector of Police CBCID, Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3. The Inspector of Police K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai City.
4. IV Additional District Judge, Madurai.