BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
S. Suthersan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.429 of 2025 and 35 and 48 of 2026
Decided On : 01-06-2026
ORDER :
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
The appellants/accused Nos.6, 7 and 15 in S.C.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi have filed these criminal appeals before this Court.
2.Since these criminal appeals are arising out of the same crime, these cases are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by way of this common judgment
3. Brief Facts and Past Events of these Appeals:
Earlier, these appellants had filed applications seeking bail, and the same were dismissed. More particularly, one of the appellants, namely Sutherson, the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025, had filed an appeal in Crl.A. (MD).No.494 of 2023. This Court, after considering the gravity of the offence, taking into account the continuous threat to the witnesses and the defacto complainant, and also noting that a number of the accused have previous antecedents, dismissed the application and issued directions to conduct the trial in the jail premises, on the reasoning that there was a continuous threat to the witnesses in the court premises, by issuing various directions by order dated 11.10.2023. The same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl).No.422 of 2024.
3.1. In view of the above background of the case, for better appreciation, this Court states the following brief facts of the prosecution case:
3.1.1.According to the prosecution, the deceased was a practising advocate in the Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli Bar Associations. The defacto complainant in the above crime number has two brothers. One of his brothers is P.K. Shivakumar and the other is P.K. Muthukumar. The said P.K. Shivakumar was murdered by a mob in front of the court campus in the presence of the deceased P.K. Muthukumar and the defacto complainant. Hence, the Thoothukudi South Police Station registered a case in Crime No.533 of 2019. The investigating agency conducted the investigation in the said crime number and filed the final report against a number of accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120(b) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, and the same was taken on file as S.C.No.62 of 2020.
3.1.2.In the said case, one of the accused is Rajesh. The said Rajesh was a friend of the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2025, and the remaining accused are close associates of the various accused in the said case. The deceased advocate, P.K. Muthukumar, and the defacto complainant were relentlessly taking steps to intervene in the bail applications filed by all the accused in the said murder case of his brother, P.K. Shivakumar. The same infuriated and provoked the accused in Crime No.533 of 2019 to hatch a plan to eliminate P.K. Muthukumar, as he was a hurdle to them in obtaining bail. 3.1.3.Therefore, the accused, while in jail, conspired with these appellants and other accused and murdered the said P.K. Muthukumar, Advocate, on 22.02.2023 at about 2.15 p.m., near P.K. Gold Loan Shop at Thoothukudi, Soreeshpuram Madhapur Road. Hence, a complaint was given before the SIPCOT Police Station, namely, the respondent police. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, and 109 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused and filed the final report against 15 accused, and the same was taken on file as S.C.No.25 of 2023.
3.1.4. As observed above, Sutherson filed a bail application before the Special Court for Trial of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi, in Cr.M.P.No.1196 of 2024, stating that in spite of the direction given by this Court to complete the trial within a period of two months, the trial has not been completed, and hence, his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed, and pre-trial incarceration of more than three


















(1) Bail – Even if accused is confined in jail for a long period, same is not a ground to grant relief of bail to accused.(2) Rights of victims and witnesses – To make arrangements of protection of v....
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor were key factors in denying bail to the petitioner.
The court emphasized the need to balance the individual's right to personal freedom with the right of police investigation, and considered the delay in trial, lack of prima facie evidence, and absenc....
The severity of the charge of murder and the legal principles for granting bail in such cases were central to the court's decision.
Grant of Bail - Right of under trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may be considered and protected inasmuch as they should not be compelled to serve maximum punishing.
The severity of the charges and the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge are crucial in deciding bail applications in serious offences.
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.