Poopandi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05/01/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Poopandi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep, by the Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police,

2. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Arupukottai Sub Division,

3. State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Aviyur Police Station, Madurai District.

4. Narayanan

5. Nammakodi

6. Chinnakaruppu

7. Natchei

8. Karuppu @ Karuppaya

9. Siva

10. Kundu Kumar ... Respondents 1/6

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members by considering petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2025 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani, Advocate.

For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R4 to R10 :Mr.P.Suresh Kumar

ORDER

The present petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 01.11.2025.

2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner's apprehension was already addressed by 2/6

the District Standing Committee headed by the learned Principal District Judge. After enquiry, the committee has stated that there was no demonstrable or corroborated threat, and the petitioner's apprehension appeared to be based largely on subjective presumptions. Therefore, the threat perception was assessed as Category-C(Low Threat Perception). Inspite of the same, the learned Principal District Judge has passed the following order:

"5).I.The applicant does not require formal witness-protection measures at present. Routine beat patrolling in the petitioner's locality shall be continued by the local police and the Witness Protection Cell until completion of the trial in the main case.

II. The petitioner is advised to promptly report any fresh or specific threat to the nearest police station or to the Witness Protection Cell, III. The Inspector of Police, Aviyoor, and the Witness Protection Cell shall file a monthly report 3/6

before the Competent Authority. The matter will be reviewed again on 08.03.2025.

IV. Whenever the petitioner feels insecure, he may contact the Inspector of Police concerned, who shall provide necessary protection.

V. The emergency phone number of the Aviyoor Police Station shall be given to the petitioner, and the petitioner's contact number shall likewise be provided to the Inspector of Police, Aviyoor. VI. Since Spl.S.C.No.53/2025 is pending before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC/ST Act Cases, Srivilliputtur, the Sessions Judge is requested to give special attention to the case and to commence and dispose the trial at the earliest."

3. Recording the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is protected by the above order. Therefore, a separate order is not necessary. But the petitioner is still apprehending that the respondents 4 to 10 would give some threat. Hence, the respondents 4 to 10 are directed to submit an undertaking that they will not 4/6

threat the petitioner in future. The said affidavit shall be filed before the third respondent.

4. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

05.01.2026 PJL TO

1. The Superintendent of Police,, Office of the Superintendent of Police,

2. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Arupukottai Sub Division,

3. The Inspector of Police, Aviyur Police Station, Madurai District.

5/6

S.SRIMATHY,J PJL

ORDER

IN WP CRL.(MD) No.2301 of 2025 Date : 05/01/2026 6/6