The court emphasized the principle of presumption of innocence, stating that an accused is entitled to bail unless compelling reasons exist, particularly when prior incidences may indicate malicious prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

B.Pugalendhi, J.

These Criminal Appeals are filed as against the orders passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, in Crl.MP.Nos.18, 19, 20 of 2025, dated 04.03.2025 and Crl.MP.No.320 of 2024, dated 17.02.2025, in connection with Crime No.39 of 2020 on the file of the Melavalavu Police Station, rejecting the bail applications.

2.Since all these criminal appeals are arising out of the rejection of bail in connection with the same criminal case, all the appeals are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3.The appellants before this Court are accused nos.1 to 4 & 11 in Crime No.39 of 2020, on the file of the Melavalavu Police Station. The allegation as against these appellants is that when one Suresh, the defacto complainant's friend, was attempting to fence the property, pursuant to the survey conducted on 24.02.2020, the appellants have abused and attacked the said Suresh as well as the defacto complainant, who accompanied him and caused injuries to them. On the complaint lodged by the third respondent / defacto complainant, the case in Crime No.39 of 2020 was registered for the offence u/s.147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 379 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC / ST [POA] Amendment Act. The appellants were arrested on 05.08.2023 and bail was granted to them by the trial Court in Crl.MP.Nos.445, 447 of 2020, dated 09.09.2020. However, it was later cancelled by this Court in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.10559, 10561 of 2020, dated 31.03.2023, considering the subsequent registration of a case in Crime No. 202 of 2022, on the file of the Melavalavu Police Station, as against these appellants, for the offence under Section 147 , 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC that these appellants along with other accused have murdered one Suresh, who is a witness in Crime No.39 of 2020. It is reported that the bail granted to the appellants / A1, A2 & A11 in Crime No.202 of 2022 was also cancelled by this Court in Crl.OP(MD) No.16237 of 2023, dated 06.09.2024.

4.The earlier Criminal Appeals preferred by these appellants /accused nos.1 to 4 & 11 in Crl.A(MD)Nos.189, 188, 112 and 185 of 2024, challenging the orders passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai, rejecting their bail applications, were also dismissed by this Court, by order, dated 06.09.2024. In fact, this Court has elaborately discussed and dismissed the earlier appeals filed by the appellants. These appeals are now filed as against the subsequent orders passed by the trial Court, seeking bail on the ground that the trial has commenced and that most of the witnesses have been examined and also for the purpose of enabling them to defend their case.

5.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants / accused has made his submissions as under:-

5.1.Three Kanmois, namely, (i) Murugakone Kanmoi situated in S.Nos.811/1 to 4, (ii) Puthukanmoi @ Sinnankulam situated in S.No.805/1 to 3 and (iii) Nayakankulam Kanmoi situated in S.Nos.815, 819 of A.Vallalapatti Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, were encroached by the father-in-law of the defacto complainant. The first accused / Gopalakrishnan has raised this issue by way of a public interest litigation in WP(MD)No.8286 of 2012 seeking a mandamus to remove the encroachments. This Court, by order dated 06.08.2014, has allowed that writ petition and ordered for removal of encroachments. For having raised this issue, several criminal cases have been foisted as against the first accused and his family