##PAGE1##

Crl.A. No. 35 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.A. No. 35 of 2026

R.K. Girivasan,

S/o. Rajalingam,

49/21, Periyannan Street,

Namakkal Town,

Namakkal District. ..Appellant

Vs.

1. The State rep. By

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Namakkal District.

2. State rep. By

Inspector of Police,

Namakkal Police Station,

Namakkal District.

3. S. Poongodi

D/o.Chandrasekar,

VAO, Namakkal Taluk,

Namakkal District.

4. Premkumar,

D.No. 235, D-Block,

Housing Board,

1\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/01/2026 08:21:04 pm )

##PAGE2##

Crl.A. No. 35 of 2026

Kondichettipatty,

Namakkal. ..Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14 (A) Scheduled Castes &

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 to set aside the order

dated 17.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 228 of 2025 by the learned

Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases registered under SC/ST

(POA) Act, Namakkal and enlarge the appellant on bail.

For Appellant :: Mr.R. Vivekananthan

For Respondents :: Mr.S. Rajakumar,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

for R1 & R2

Mr. Mohamed Saifulla

Legal Aid Counsel for R4

J U D G M E N T

The appeal challenges the dismissal of the bail petition filed by the

appellant, who is arrayed as A3 in Crime No.426/2025 registered for the

offences under Section 103(1), 61(2) BNS r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)

Act. 1989.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first and second accused

are friends; that the deceased was known to both of them; that the deceased

2\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/01/2026 08:21:04 pm )

##PAGE3##

Crl.A. No. 35 of 2026

had commented about the character of the mother of the first accused; that

therefore, the first and second accused along with the appellant and fourth

accused had conspired to do away with the deceased; that the appellant had

assisted the other accused by reporting to them about the movement of the

victim and that on the date of occurrence, the appellant had informed the

first two accused about the whereabouts of the deceased, who in turn caused

the death of the deceased by stabbing him with knife. The appellant sought

for bail, which was dismissed by the impugned order.

3.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

appellant has no bad antecedents; that the first accused is a juvenile accused;

that the appellant was not involved in the alleged occurrence. He therefore

submitted that considering the nature of allegation and the period of

incarceration, the appellant may be released on bail. The learned counsel

further submitted that the appeal filed by similarly placed co-accused A4

was allowed by this Court in Crl.A. No. 18 of 2026.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the investigation has been completed;

3\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/01/2026 08:21:04 pm )

##PAGE4##

Crl.A. No. 35 of 2026

that though the appellant was not involved in the alleged occurrence of

murder, he had assisted the other accused by reporting to them about the

movement of the victim and that final report has been filed, which is yet to

be taken on file.

5. Notice was served on the fourth respondent/the father of

the deceased. He appeared in person and sought legal assistance. Hence, this

Court had appointed Mr.Mohamed Saifulla, as Legal Aid Counsel to assist

him. In fact, the said counsel assisted the victim in the bail application filed

by A4.

6. Mr.Mohamed Saifulla, the learned Legal Aid Counsel

submitted that the appellant is involved in a grievous offence; that if he is

released on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses and hence, the appeal

may be dismissed.

7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials on record.

4\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/01/2026 08:21:04 pm )

##PAGE5##

Crl.A. No. 35 of 2026

8. Admittedly, the appellant is not involved in the alleged

offence of murder. The only allegation against him is that he had assisted the

other

Click Here to Read the rest of this document