Chinnadurai vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep.

2026:MHC:2534
Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 07.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.A(MD)Nos.69 & 186 of 2026
Chinnadurai ... Appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.69/2026
Maharaja @ Maharajan ... Appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.186/2026
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Melur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Melur Police Station,
Madurai District.
Cr.No.560 of 2025
3.Muthuraja
... Respondents 1 to 3 in both Appeals
4.P.Alagan,
Special Public Prosecutor,
III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR),
th
Madurai. ... 4 Respondent in
Crl.A(MD)No.69/2026
suo-motu
[R.4 impleaded vide order dated 10.06.2026]
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
COMMON PRAYER :- To call for the records of the judgment dated
02.01.2026 and 07.01.2026 in Crl.MP.Nos.414 of 2025 and 5 of 2026,
respectively, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, PCR Court, Madurai and quash the same.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
in Crl.A(MD).69/2026
: Mr.P.Senguttu Arasan
in Crl.A(MD).186/2026

For Respondents: Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R.1, R.2 in both Appeals
: Ms.M.Sudha Rani
Legal Aid Counsel for R.3
in both Appeals
: Ms.N.Juliet Latha
for R.4 in Crl.A(MD).69/2026
*
COMMON ORDER
The appellants are Accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.560 of 2025 on the
file of Melur Police Station, Madurai. The case has been registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 49, 296(b), 118(1), 109(1)
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the basis of a complaint lodged by Muthuraja, the
defacto complainant. The bail applications filed by the appellants were
dismissed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR),
Madurai, by orders dated 07.01.2026 (A3) and 02.01.2026 (A4). Aggrieved by
the same, the present criminal appeals have been filed.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who
belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is working as an excavator
operator, had been raising the issue relating to the restoration of about 190.74
acres of Panchami lands in Keeranur Village from the year 2024. According to
him, the said lands were under the illegal occupation of Accused Nos.6 to 9.
He had submitted representations to the authorities and thereafter filed
WP(MD)No.32088 of 2025 before this Court seeking resumption and
redistribution of the Panchami lands in favour of the Scheduled Caste
residents of Keeranur Village. By order dated 12.11.2025, this Court directed
the Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Collector,
Madurai, to consider his representation in accordance with the relevant
Government Orders.
3/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
3.According to the prosecution, Accused No.5, Rajendhiran, who was
also involved in illegal sand quarrying in the Panchami lands, developed a
grudge as against the defacto complainant that he had lodged a complaint
against him. It is further alleged that certain other persons, including
Chellapandi, Ayyankalai, Ravi and Sasi, had also encroached upon the
Panchami lands.
4.The prosecution further alleges that on 18.11.2025, Accused No.1
contacted the defacto complainant and took him from his workplace on the
pretext of cleaning his uncle's land. Instead, he took him near the bridge
adjoining the motor pump set at Keeranur Village Lake at about 02.00 pm.
After reaching the spot, the accused abused the defacto complainant by
referring to his caste name, threatened him with dire consequences in
connection with the Panchami land dispute and attacked him. Accused No.1
allegedly attempted to assault him with a sickle on his neck. While trying to
protect himself, the defacto complainant sustained severe injuries, including
grievous injuries to his right wrist, left thumb and left palm, besides multiple
injuries all over his body. It is further alleged that Accused Nos.2 to 4, who
were armed with aruvals, chased and attacked him, causing injuries on his
left shoulder, left elbow and wrist. The accused also threatened to kill him if
4/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
he continued to assert his rights over the Panchami lands. On the basis of his
complaint, the present crime came to be registered.
5.The learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail applications mainly on
the ground that the defacto complainant had sustained grievous injuries and
undergone surgery, that the allegations were serious in nature, that the
investigation was still in progress and that there was a possibility of the
accused influencing witnesses.
6.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the
appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated merely because they
were allegedly present along with Accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of the
occurrence. According to the learned Counsel, the principal overt act is
attributed only to Accused No.1, who is presently detained under the Tamil
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. It is therefore submitted that,
considering the period of incarceration undergone by the appellants, they
may be enlarged on bail.
7.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.69
of 2026 further submitted that the appellant was working as a driver in
5/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
Poovanthi Institute of Rehabilitation and Elder Care and was on duty at the
relevant time. According to him, he had taken a patient from the Institute to
Meenakshi Mission Hospital in an ambulance and returned to the Institute
only at 04.54 pm. It is therefore contended that he could not have been
present at the place of occurrence and has been falsely implicated.
8.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the grant
of bail. He submitted that the defacto complainant had been pursuing the
issue relating to restoration of Panchami lands and had obtained an order
from this Court in WP(MD)No.32088 of 2025 on 12.11.2025. The occurrence
took place within a week thereafter, on 18.11.2025. He submitted that the
defacto
complainant was brutally attacked by nine accused on account of his
efforts to secure restoration of the Panchami lands and that he sustained
grievous injuries, including severe injuries to his right hand. He further
submitted that Accused No.3 is a history-sheeted rowdy involved in five
previous criminal cases, including one case for an offence under Section 302
IPC.
9.The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the
investigation has since been completed and the final report has been filed
6/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai,
where it has been taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2026.
10.The learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also
opposed the grant of bail. According to him, if the appellants are released on
bail, there is a real apprehension that the defacto complainant may be
threatened and his life may be put in danger.
11.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.
12.The materials placed before this Court show that the defacto
complainant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, had been
pursuing the issue relating to restoration of Panchami lands in Keeranur
Village. According to the prosecution, for having approached this Court by
filing WP(MD)No.32088 of 2025 and obtaining an order on 12.11.2025, as a
retaliation, within a week therefrom, on 18.11.2025, the defacto complainant
was brutally attacked and he sustained grievous injuries. Having regard to
the gravity of the allegations, this Court, at that stage, did not consider it
appropriate to go into the question of bail, and the matter was kept pending
for consideration. However, since one of the specific allegations related to
7/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
alleged illegal quarrying activities in the said lands, this Court, in order to
ascertain the factual position, directed the Superintendent of Police, Madurai,
to verify the place of occurrence and submit a report indicating whether any
such quarrying activities were being carried on in the said lands.
13.Pursuant to the said direction, a field inspection was conducted by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, and a status report dated
10.04.2026 was submitted before this Court. The report indicates that revenue
records and communications of the Tahsildar, Melur, as early as in the year
2010 had already pointed out instances of encroachment in the said
Panchami lands and that appropriate proceedings had been initiated in that
regard. It further indicates that directions had been issued by the revenue
authorities for cancellation of pattas granted in favour of non-Panchami
persons and for restoration of the revenue position in accordance with law.
The District Collector had also issued directions to ensure protection of
Panchami lands from alienation in favour of non-entitled persons. Some of
the affected parties are stated to have challenged those proceedings, which
are presently pending consideration before the State Level Committee
constituted under G.O.Ms.No.12, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (LA-2)
Department, dated 04.03.2022.
8/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
14.The inspection further discloses prima facie instances of
encroachment over portions of the subject lands. It was reported that
Accused No.5, Rajendhiran, had encroached upon more than one acre of
Panchami land adjoining his property. The inspection also revealed that a
layout development under the name “Sri Angaiyarkanni Nagar” had been
formed on a portion of the said lands. In addition, quarrying activity was
noticed in Survey Nos.151, 21, 22 and 162, which form part of the lands
referred to in the writ proceedings. According to the DSP, on verification
with the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, it was found that no
licence had been granted for carrying out quarrying operations in the said
survey numbers.
15.The above materials are relevant because they explain the
background in which the present occurrence is alleged to have taken place.
16.When these criminal appeals against the rejection of bail were
pending before this Court, Accused No.3 filed Crl.MP.No.202 of 2026 before
the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai and
was granted bail by order dated 03.06.2026. Likewise, Accused No.4 filed
9/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
Crl.MP.No.185 of 2026 before the same Court and was granted bail by order
dated 15.05.2026. Since these criminal appeals challenging the earlier
rejection of bail were already pending before this Court, this Court, by order
dated 19.06.2026, called for an explanation from the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, regarding the circumstances in which
the subsequent bail applications came to be entertained and allowed. This
Court also impleaded the concerned Special Public Prosecutor, namely,
Tr.P.Alagan, attached to the said Court and directed him to submit his
explanation.
17.The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, in his
explanations dated 15.06.2026 and 29.06.2026, has stated that the pendency of
these criminal appeals was not brought to his notice by the Counsel
appearing for the appellants. He has further stated that the prosecution had
filed detailed written objections running to fourteen pages in English and
two pages in Tamil. However, when he called upon the prosecution to briefly
explain the substance of the objections, neither the learned Special Public
Prosecutor nor the Investigating Officer informed the Court that the earlier
rejection of bail was already under challenge before this Court. The learned
Judge has also stated that the Counsel appearing for the accused / one
10/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
S.Velmurugan subsequently filed an affidavit stating that the appellants
themselves had not informed him about the pendency of these criminal
appeals.
18.Tr.P.Alagan, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who appeared
before the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai, has
filed an affidavit stating that he had filed a detailed written objection
opposing the grant of bail and that paragraph 10 thereof specifically referred
to the pendency of these criminal appeals before this Court. According to
him, the relevant fact had therefore been brought on record in the written
objections.
19.In the above factual background, this Court is of the view that the
conduct of the stakeholders in the proceedings require consideration.
Judicial Discipline in Subsequent Bail Applications:-
20.The subsequent grant of bail by the learned III Additional District
and Sessions Judge to the appellants during the pendency of these criminal
appeals raises an issue concerning judicial discipline. The question is not as
to the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, as both the High Court and the
11/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
Court of Session exercise concurrent jurisdiction in matters relating to bail.
The issue is whether, once the criminal appeals challenging the earlier
rejection of bail had already been entertained by this Court, it was
appropriate for the Sessions Court to consider and dispose of fresh bail
applications filed by the same accused in the same case.
21.Judicial discipline requires that, once the High Court is seized of the
matter and the issue of bail is under its consideration in appeal, parallel
consideration by the Sessions Court on the same subject should ordinarily be
avoided, except where there is a clear change in circumstances. This is to
prevent conflicting decisions and to ensure the orderly administration of
justice, since concurrent jurisdiction does not imply concurrent exercise in a
manner that defeats judicial discipline.
Raja
22.The above principles has been explained by this Court in
Elango, City Public Prosecutor v. State [ 1998-1 L.W. (Crl) ], in the following
terms:-
“64.No doubt it is true that Section 439, Code of Criminal
Procedure confers concurrent powers in the matter of grant of bail to the
Court of Session as well as this Court. But, once High Court took up the
matter and gave a finding in the application, the Sessions Court either to
12/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
have refrained from dealing with the bail application by directing the party
to approach the High Court or to find out any substantial change of
circumstances, after going through the High Court's order. Admittedly,
this was not done.
67.As held by the Apex Court in the various decisions referred to
above, even among the Judges of this High Court, when the second
application comes before some other Judge, the judicial propriety demands
the subsequent application must be placed before the Judge, who already
dealt with the matter. The Supreme Court says in its words "the judicial
discipline" requires such matters must be placed before the same Judge.
68.The concurrent jurisdiction conferred to the Sessions as well as
the High Court would not help the Sessions Court to entertain lightly the
bail application after it was dismissed by the High Court. It should be
borne in mind the distinction between the existence of jurisdiction and its
proper exercise. Entertaining of such bail application, in the absence of
substantial change of circumstance, would amount to improper exercise of
jurisdiction, which must necessarily be avoided.”
23.In the present case, the criminal appeals were already pending
before this Court when the subsequent bail applications were moved before
the Sessions Court. The fact that the matter was under consideration of this
Court was not effectively brought to the notice of the Sessions Court at the
time of hearing, either by the Counsel appearing for the accused or by the
Public Prosecutor. Consequently, the same issue which was seized of by this
13/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
Court came to be independently considered by the Sessions Court, which is
precisely the situation that the principle of judicial discipline is intended to
avoid.
24.No doubt, the Counsel appearing for the accused and the Special
Public Prosecutor have not performed their duty and informed the Sessions
Court about the pendency of the appeals before this Court. However, the
Courts have a duty to consider all the relevant factors while considering bail
applications. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana [ AIR 2021 SC 2011 ] wherein it was held as under:
“24. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a two-
Judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] : (SCC
p. 499, para 9)
“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an
order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused.
However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its
discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic
principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It
is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the
14/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”
Explicating the power of this Court to set aside an order granting bail, this Court
held : (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] , SCC p. 499, para 10)
“10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant
considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer
from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.”
... ... ...
39. ….. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail—as in the case of
any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution—is not
unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which
ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a
judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the
thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets
objective standards of reason and justice.”
25.Therefore, the grant of bail is governed by objective factors and the
judicial discretion has to be exercised judiciously, cautiously and strictly after
considering all the relevant factors and not in a casual or negligent manner.
15/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
In the present case, certain facts had a direct bearing on the exercise of
discretion, namely, the complainant’s Scheduled Caste status, the nature of
the dispute relating to Panchami lands, the proceedings before this Court in
WP(MD)No.32088 of 2025, the proximity of the occurrence to the judicial
order dated 12.11.2025, the nature of injuries sustained, and the fact that the
earlier rejection of bail was already under challenge before this Court. These
were the circumstances that required focused attention during the bail
hearing. However, these important facts which had a direct bearing on the
decision were not properly highlighted before the learned Sessions Judge.
26.It is relevant to note that the role of an Advocate, a Public
Prosecutor, and the Investigating Officer, though distinct, operates within a
common objective of assisting the Court in arriving at a fair and informed
decision. Each stakeholder is expected to ensure that the Court is not merely
provided with records, but is also assisted in identifying the facts that are
truly relevant for the exercise of judicial discretion.
Role of an Advocate:
27.An advocate is an officer of the Court. While he owes a duty to
16/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
protect the interests of his client, he also owes a corresponding duty to the
Court to ensure that the administration of justice is not hindered by
suppression or omission of material facts. This duty assumes greater
importance in proceedings relating to bail, where the Court is required to
exercise its discretion on the basis of the facts placed before it within a limited
time.
28.In the present case, the subsequent bail applications were filed
before the Sessions Court when these criminal appeals challenging the earlier
rejection of bail were already pending before this Court, and the same was
not bought to the notice of the Sessions Court by the Counsel appearing for
the accused, which is not proper and deserves condemnation.
Role of Prosecutor:-
29.A Public Prosecutor is not a Counsel engaged merely to secure a
conviction or oppose every application filed by the accused. He is an officer
of the Court and a representative of the State, entrusted with the duty of
assisting the Court in the administration of criminal justice. His obligation is
to act fairly, objectively and responsibly by placing before the Court all
relevant facts having a bearing on the issue under consideration. As held by
17/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarinder Singh vs. Prakash Singh Badal
[ (2009) 6 SCC 260 ], a Public Prosecutor is an officer of the Court and cannot
merely act on the instructions of the Government. His foremost duty is to
assist the Court in arriving at a just decision.
30.This responsibility assumes even greater significance in prosecutions
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, where the investigation is entrusted to an officer not below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and where the Courts are expected
to give an audience to the defacto complainant before deciding the bail pleas
of the accused. The enactment is intended to protect members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities and to ensure that
victims receive meaningful protection through the criminal justice system.
31.The duty of the Public Prosecutor does not end with placing the
entire record before the Court. A distinction must be drawn between placing
the materials on record and effectively assisting the Court during the hearing.
While detailed written objections may be necessary depending on the facts of
the case, the real assistance to the Court lies in identifying the specific facts
which have a direct bearing on the exercise of judicial discretion and bringing
18/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
them clearly to the notice of the Court during oral hearing. The Sessions
Courts are required to dispose of a large number of bail applications, and it is
neither feasible nor expected that the Court should independently examine
lengthy pleadings to identify decisive facts. The Public Prosecutor, being the
voice of the victim, should develop the skill of brevity (i.e.) being straight to
the point and avoiding unnecessary details . The avoidance of unnecessary
details, compressing arguments into their absolute essence and hitting the
core of a message is an essential aspect of advocacy.
32.Here, the learned Special Public Prosecutor had filed a detailed
written objection running to fourteen pages, under the impression that it is
his only duty. There is nothing improper to in filing a detailed written
objection if the facts of a case so warrant. But, when the learned Sessions
Judge specifically called upon the Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer to
briefly indicate the substance of their objections, the material facts having a
direct bearing on the consideration of the bail applications were not
effectively highlighted. Effective advocacy is not measured by the number of
pages filed. It lies in identifying the relevant issues, separating the material
facts from the immaterial details, and presenting such decisive facts to the
Court with clarity and precision. That is the assistance which every Court
19/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
legitimately expects from a Public Prosecutor, but the same was not done in
this case.
33.The present case demonstrates that where such effective assistance is
lacking, the process of adjudication may proceed without consideration of all
the material facts. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that the system is
supported by properly equipped and competent prosecuting officers who are
able to discharge this responsibility effectively.
Need for Merit-Based Appointment of Law Officers:-
34.The present case highlights the importance of ensuring that the State
is effectively represented by competent prosecuting officers. A Public
Prosecutor or Government Law Officer acts as the vital link between the
investigating agency and the Court. They also represent the State in sensitive
matters involving corruption, economic offences and litigations concerning
governmental action relating to land, revenue, public employment,
education, taxation, public policy and other matters of public importance. If
the Court is not effectively assisted in these matters, not only the interests of
the victims, but the broader public and societal interest suffers and
ultimately, the administration of justice itself is undermined.
20/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
35.The importance of appointing competent Law Officers has already
been recognised by the First Bench of this Court in V.Vasanthakumar v. The
Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu [ W.P.No.12951 of 2017, dated
28.04.2018 ] . The First Bench directed the State Government to evolve
objective criteria for the appointment of Law Officers by giving due
weightage to factors such as advocacy, legal acumen, quality of drafting,
reported and unreported judgments, academic background, integrity,
behaviour and general reputation. Pursuant thereto, the Government
amended the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai
(Appointment) Rules, 2017 vide G.O.Ms.No.539, Public (Law Officers)
Department, dated 19.07.2018 and incorporated these parameters as Rule 5(7)
which is extracted hereunder:
“5(7) The Selection Committee shall be satisfied about the
qualification, experience, integrity, reliability, appearances in court,
advocacy, legal accumen, quality of drafting pleadings, report and
unreported Judgments, academic background, behaviour, general
reputation and antecedents of the candidates.”
These criteria are intended to ensure that appointments are made on merit
and that the State is represented by advocates capable of effectively assisting
the Court.
21/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
36.However, this Court has also noticed that these standards are not
always adhered to in their true spirit. In Raj Kumar vs The State of Tamil
Nadu [ Crl.MP(MD)No.12468 of 2025 dated 01.04.2026 ], this Court observed
that appointments of Law Officers, in certain cases, appear to have been
made not strictly on merit, but on extraneous considerations and on the basis
of proximity and allegiance to the ruling dispensation, and that such
appointments may include persons lacking adequate legal competence and
courtroom ability, and persons whose only qualification is their involvement
in menial political activities like affixing posters, with the result that effective
conduct of cases is compromised and the administration of justice is
adversely affected. Such observations underline the need for strict adherence
to the prescribed norms rather than dilution of standards in implementation.
37.It is therefore necessary to reiterate, particularly in the context of
ongoing appointments of Law Officers, that such selections must strictly
conform to the standards already laid down. It should not remain mere
formal requirements on paper. A transparent and merit-based selection
process alone will inspire confidence in the institution and ensure that the
Government, as well as victims whom it represents, receive effective legal
assistance before the Courts. The present case reinforces the importance of
22/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
ensuring that Law Officers are selected on the basis of demonstrable
professional ability and suitability to assist the Court effectively.
38.The legal profession today has many advocates, including young
members of the Bar, possessing exceptional legal knowledge, sound
advocacy skills and impeccable professional standards. Merit must receive
due recognition. Appointments to public offices should be guided by
competence, integrity and professional ability and not by recommendations
or other extraneous considerations. The object of the selection process should
always be to identify the candidates who are best equipped to represent the
State and assist the Court.
39.Besides the parameters already recognised under Rule 5(7), the
Selection Committee may, wherever considers appropriate, also take into
account objective indicators of the candidate's professional practice,
including the professional income disclosed in the income-tax returns. Such
material cannot, by itself, determine suitability. It may, however, constitute
one among several objective factors reflecting the extent of the candidate's
active professional practice and should always be assessed along with
advocacy, legal ability, integrity and overall professional standing.
23/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
Appointment of Prosecutors for District Court:-
40.Insofar as the appointment of law officers to District Courts are
concerned, the same is made under Section 18 of the BNSS [Section 24 of
CrPC] by the District Magistrate, in consultation with the Sessions Judge
from a panel of names of persons. This provision merely provides that Public
Prosecutors should have a minimum of 7 years’ experience and Special
Public Prosecutors should have a minimum of 10 years’ experience. It is
regrettable to note that no objective criteria such as legal accumen, quality of
drafting pleadings, behaviour, general reputation and antecedents of the
candidates are prescribed for the selection of the Law Officers to the District
and Special Courts. In reality, these Officers act as the gatekeeper of the
criminal justice system and are responsible for representing the victims in
bail applications and criminal trials.
th
41.It is relevant to note that the Law Commission of India in its 197
report on Public Prosecutor’s Appointments has noted that any method of
appointment which sacrifices the quality of the prosecution or which enables
State Governments to make appointments at their choice without proper
screening, proper assessment of the qualifications, experience or integrity of
24/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
the individuals, will lead to arbitrariness. It also proposed the amendment of
Section 24(4) of the CrPC to mandate that the Sessions Judge must give
importance to experience in Sessions cases, merit and integrity of the persons
proposed to be appointed as public prosecutors. However, the above
recommendations have not been implemented by the government even after
the introduction of the BNSS and the legal provision prescribes only the
criteria of experience.
42.Considering the important role played by the Public Prosecutors and
Special Public Prosecutors in protecting the rights of the victims and the
recommendations of the Law Commission, this Court is of the opinion that
the guidelines issued in Vasanthakumar’s case (referred supra) and the
discussions made supra should also be considered when appointing public
prosecutors to the District Courts and Special Courts.
43.Reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court is unable to
overlook the manner in which the subsequent bail applications came to be
entertained and allowed. The criminal appeals challenging the earlier
rejection of bail were already pending before this Court. The learned Sessions
Judge has stated that the pendency of these appeals was not brought to his
25/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
notice during the hearing. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, states that the said fact had been mentioned in the written objections.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded
to consider and allow the subsequent bail applications without being
effectively apprised that the very issue was already engaging the attention of
this Court.
44.As already observed, the issue is not one of jurisdiction but of
judicial discipline. Likewise, the issue is not whether the prosecution filed a
lengthy written objection. The real question is whether the Court was
effectively assisted on the facts which were material for deciding the bail
applications. On the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered
view that such effective assistance was lacking.
45.The consequence is evident. A case involving serious allegations
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989, arising out of a dispute concerning Panchami lands, where the
victim had sustained grievous injuries and where the earlier rejection of bail
was already engaging the attention of this Court, was not presented before
the learned Sessions Judge in the manner in which it ought to have been.
26/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
These observations are made to emphasise the importance of effective
advocacy, meaningful assistance to the Court and adherence to judicial
discipline in proceedings involving personal liberty.
46.Insofar as these criminal appeals are concerned, it is not in dispute
that, during their pendency, the appellants were granted bail by the learned
III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, in Crl.M.P.No.202
of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.185 of 2026 by orders dated 03.06.2026 and 15.05.2026
respectively. The appellants are presently out on bail. It is also reported that
the investigation has been completed and the final report has been taken on
file as Spl.S.C.No.28 of 2026. In view of these subsequent developments,
nothing further survives for consideration in these criminal appeals.
47.During the hearing of these appeals, on the directions of this Court,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, conducted a field inspection
regarding the allegations of encroachment and illegal quarrying in the
Panchami lands. Pursuant thereto, a report has been submitted before this
Court. Since the said report may have a bearing on the prosecution case, the
respondent police shall ensure that the report, along with all connected
materials, is placed before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge shall
27/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
consider the same, if it is otherwise admissible and relevant, in accordance
with law.
48.The purpose of the above observations is to emphasise certain
institutional principles which are essential for the proper administration of
criminal justice. Effective advocacy, fair assistance by the prosecution,
adherence to judicial discipline and careful exercise of judicial discretion are
indispensable to the administration of justice. It is only when every
stakeholder faithfully performs the duty cast upon him that public
confidence in the criminal justice system can be sustained.
With the above observations and directions, these Criminal Appeals
stand closed.
Internet : Yes 07.07.2026
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
gk
Note:
Mark a copy of this order to
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
28/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
2. The Advocate General,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
3. The State Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
PCR Court,
Madurai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Melur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Melur Police Station,
Madurai District.
29/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )

Crl.A(MD)Nos.69, 186 of 2026
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Crl.A(MD)Nos.69 & 186 of 2026
07.07.2026
30/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2026 11:11:21 am )