IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

R. Arun

S/o. Rajendran,

No.4/851, Agan Nagar,

4^th Street, Perumuchi,

Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District. ..Appellant

Vs.

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

2. State rep. By Inspector of Police,

Arakkonam Town Police Station,

Ranipet District.

(Crime No. 416 of 2025)

3. Saranya, (VAO)

W/o. Nagarathinam,

No.33, Perumuchi Village,

Arakkonam Taluk,

Ranipet District.

4. S. Kalanithi,

W/o. Late Suresh,

No. 393/241, Agan Nagar,

1^st Arakkonam Taluk,

Ranipet District – 631 002.

Phone 9677484774 (R4 is suo motu impleaded as per orders of this Court dated 08.12.2025 & 08.01.2026 in Crl.A. No. 1791 of 2025.) ..Respondents Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)2) of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the orderdated 23.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1487 of 2025 in Spl.S.C. No. 210 of 2025 in Crime No. 416 of 2025 by the Court of Sessions Division of Ranipet District and enlarge the appellant on bail. For Appellant :: Mr.M.D. Ilayaraja For Respondents :: Mr.S. Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 No appearance for R3 Mr.V. Perarasu Legal Aid Counsel for R4

J U D G M E N T

The appellant challenges the order dated 23.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1487 of 2025 in Spl.S.C. No. 210 of 2025 in Crime No. 416 of 2025 by the Court of Sessions Division of Ranipet District dismissing the appellant’s application for bail.

2. The appellant is an accused in Crime No. 416 of 2025 registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 296(b), 238 of BNS Act, 2023 and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that one Gowtham, since deceased, had illicit intimacy with the wife of appellant’s brother; that the said fact was informed to the appellant/A1 by A3; that all the accused conspired to do away with the deceased; that they caused the death of the deceased and threw the body into a lake.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the case was initially registered under Section 194(1) of BNSS; that it was subsequently altered to aforementioned offences; that the case is based on circumstantial evidence; that the appellant has been implicated only on suspicion; that the appellant is in custody from 18.06.2025; that the appellant has no bad antecedents; that co-accused A3 was granted bail by the Sessions Court by order dated 15.09.2025; that the final report has already been filed and that it has been taken cognizance in Special S.C. No. 210 of 2025.

5. Though notice was served on the de facto complainant, none entered appearance on her behalf. Therefore, this Court appointed Mr.V. Perarasu, who represented the de facto complainant and he would submit that the appellant is guilty of a heinous offence; that if the appellant is enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses and since, the trial is yet to commence, the appeal may be dismissed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 confirmed the fact that one of the co-accused has been released on bail and that the respondent Police have filed the final report.

7. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant; learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2.

8. It is seen that the case against the appellant was initially registered under Section 194(1) of BNSS and subsequently, it was altered to offences under Sections 103(1), 296(b), 238 of BNS Act, 2023 and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, the appellant is in custody from 18.06.2025. The respondent Police have completed the investigation and filed the final report and the same has been taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.210 of 2025. Considering the period of incarceration of the a