Muthu Esakki vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 12.10.2026
DELIVERED ON: 27.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.A(MD) No.983 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011142952026}
Muthu Esakki
..Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station,
Tirunelveli City.
2. State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station,
Tirunelveli City.
In Cr.No.302 of 2024.
3. Muthukumar
..Respondents
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A (2) of
SC/ST Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016 to call for the records
relating to the order in Cr.M.P.No.419/2026 dated 23.07.2026 in
S.C.No.75/2024 on the file the learned II Additional District and Sessions
Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli and set aside the same and grant bail to the
appellant by allowing this Criminal Appeal.
For Petitioner: Mr.M.Sathish Kumar
For R1 and R2: Mr.A.Robinson,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order declining bail passed
by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, in
Cr.M.P.No.419 of 2026 dated 23.07.2026.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the
prosecution is that the deceased was standing near the hotel when some
unknown persons attacked him and caused his death. Therefore, initially, the
case was registered in Crime No.302 of 2024 for the offences punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC against unknown persons. Subsequently, a final report
was filed against 18 Accused. The appellant herein is arrayed as A5. He was
implicated in the above crime only based on the confession of the co-Accused.
Thus, the appellant was not present at the scene of crime and he never
participated in the conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution. The only
incriminating circumstance against this appellant is that, after the occurrence,
one of the Accused met him. Since the appellant has some previous bad
antecedents, he was falsely roped in the present crime also. The investigation
was already completed and the final report was filed before the Trial Court,
which was taken on file in S.C.No.75 of 2024.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the
appellant was originally released on bail by the Trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.3162
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
of 2024 vide order dated 11.09.2024, on the condition that he should report
before the Kanchipuram Taluk Police Station daily twice at 9.00 a.m., and 5.00
p.m., until further orders. Since the appellant had suffered a life threat, he was
unable to comply with the said condition. Therefore, he moved an application
seeking relaxation in Cr.M.P.No.233 of 2025 on 23.06.2025. The learned
counsel for the appellant further submitted that, though bail was granted on
11.09.2024 itself, the appellant was booked under the Goondas Act and
therefore, he came out on bail only on 03.06.2025, after the detention order
was revoked by this Court. Thereafter, on 23.06.2025, the appellant filed a
relaxation petition before the Trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.233 of 2025. The said
relaxation petition was not considered by the Trial Court for about two months.
In the meantime, on 21.08.2025, the State moved an application seeking
cancellation of bail in Cr.M.P.No.327 of 2025. Both applications were heard
and the Trial Court, by order dated 28.10.2025, dismissed the relaxation
petition and cancelled the bail granted by it. The only ground on which the bail
was cancelled was that the appellant herein had failed to appear before the
respondent Police as directed by the Trial Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Sheik Irshad @ Monu Vs State of
Maharashtra reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185 , to show that, after filing
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
of the charge sheet and committal to the Court of Session, a direction to appear
before the Police Station is prima facie not tenable. Therefore, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that cancellation of bail merely on the ground of non-
appearance at the Police Station may not be a correct approach and good
ground. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the order
cancelling bail itself is erroneous.
5. Subsequently, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the
appellant, and the appellant herein was taken into custody on 30.06.2026. He
has been in incarceration since then. According to the learned counsel for the
appellant, the appellant failed to comply with the bail condition only due to the
life threat. Now that he is ready to comply with the conditions that may be
imposed by this Court, in the event of he being released on bail. The co-
Accused were granted bail by the Trial Court as well as by this Court. All the
co-Accused who were released on bail are complying with the conditions
without any deviations. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prays
for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court and for granting bail to the
appellant.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on
20.05.2024 at 13.30 hours one Deepak Raja was brutally murdered by the
appellant herein and other co-Accused. The learned Additional Public
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
Prosecutor, further submitted that the Appellant was granted bail on specific
condition that he shall stay at Kanchipuram and sign before the Police Station.
Though the appellant herein came out of jail on 03.06.2025, he did not comply
with the condition even for a single day. Therefore, on 21.08.2025, the
respondent Police moved a bail cancellation petition before the Trial Court and
the Trial Court has cancelled the bail. The said order was not challenged. The
appellant and the other co-Accused were not complying with the conditions
and often went absconding to prevent the progress of the trial. Though the
charge sheet was filed in the year 2024 itself, due to the dilatory tactics adopted
by the appellant and the other co-Accused, the Trial Court is not even in a
position to even frame charges against the Accused. Now, the case against A8
has been split up and the case is posted for framing of charges against the
remaining Accused. If the appellant were released on bail, he would abscond
and would not allow the trial to proceed further. The appellant had five
previous cases, including murder cases and attempted to murder cases. Apart
from that, he has involved in a case in Crime No.214 of 2026 on the file of
Tirukurungudi Police Station, after the registration of the present case.
Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the grant
of bail to the appellant.
7. Notice was issued to the de facto complainant. The de facto
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
complainant appeared through the counsel.
8. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant/R3 contended that
his brother, Deepak Raja, was brutally murdered on 20.05.2024 at 13.30 hours
by the appellant herein and other co-Accused. On completion of the
investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli and the same was taken on file
in S.C.No.75 of 2024.
9. Further, the appellant herein was arrested on 03.06.2024 and was
subsequently enlarged on bail by the Trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.3162 of 2024
by order dated 11.09.2024, subject to the condition that he should stay in
Kanchipuram District and appear and sign before the Kanchipuram Taluk
Police Station daily at 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders. The
appellant was released from prison and came out; however, from the date of his
release, he failed to comply with the condition even for a single day and was
absconding. During the period of his absence, he was involved in yet another
criminal offence and a case was registered against him, following which he
was remanded to judicial custody. Further, the de facto complainant and other
witnesses were threatened by the appellant herein and other co-Accused and
attempts were made to tamper with the witnesses. The threats were brought to
the notice of the first respondent. The first respondent moved an application for
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
cancellation of bail in Cr.M.P.No.327 of 2025 before the learned II Additional
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the Trial Court cancelled the bail granted to the
appellant herein by order dated 28.10.2025. A non-bailable warrant was issued,
which was executed on 30.06.2026. The appellant/petitioner filed a bail
petition before the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.419 of 2026 and the same was
dismissed by order dated 23.07.2026. The Trial Court considered all the
attending circumstances and passed the said impugned order. The appellant is a
history-sheeter, a notorious rowdy element and a close associate of A1, who
has several previous cases. Owing to the non-cooperation of the appellant and
the other co-Accused, the Trial Court is not even in a position to frame charges
against the Accused. The de facto complainant had approached this Court in
Crl.O.P(MD) No.18690 of 2024, seeking expeditious disposal of S.C No.75 of
2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR),
Tirunelveli and this Court was pleased to direct the Trial Court to dispose of
the case as early as possible without granting long adjournments beyond fifteen
days. However, the appellant and other co-Accused deliberately adopted
dilatory tactics and delayed the proceedings. Hence, the learned counsel for the
de facto complainant prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
10. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions put forth by either side. It is the case of the prosecution that the
appellant herein and other co-Accused unlawfully assembled and brutally
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
murdered one Deepak Raja on 20.05.2024. From the submissions of the
learned counsel for the appellant, it is found that the appellant herein was
arrested on 03.06.2024 and was subsequently enlarged on bail by the trial court
in Cr.M.P. No.3162 of 2024 by order dated 11.09.2024. He came out of prison
only on 03.06.2025, after revocation of the detention order under the Goondas
Act.
11. From the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it
is found that, though the appellant herein came out of jail on 03.06.2025, he
did not comply with the condition even for a single day, namely, staying in
Kanchipuram and signing before the Kanchipuram Taluk Police Station.
Therefore, on 21.08.2025, the respondent Police moved a bail cancellation
petition before the Trial Court, which found that the appellant had not
complied with the condition even for a single day and cancelled the bail.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheik Irshad @ Monu Vs State of Maharashtra
reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185 , to contend that, after the filing of the
charge sheet, when the trial is in progress, a direction to appear at the Police
Station is prima facie not tenable. Therefore, the cancellation of bail merely on
the ground of non-appearance at the Police Station may not be a correct
approach or a valid ground. However, on careful perusal of the said decision, it
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
is found that the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, in that case, after the filing
of the charge sheet, the trial had commenced and the Accused was regularly
attending court. However, in this case, after the appellant came out of jail
following the revocation of the detention order passed under the Goondas Act,
he never appeared before the Police Station or before the Trial Court.
13. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant was facing a life threat and therefore, was unable to comply with the
conditions, the same was not substantiated by any relevant materials. From the
submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is found that the
appellant and the other co-Accused were not complying with the conditions
and often went absconding to prevent the progress of the trial. Though the
charge sheet was filed in the year 2024 itself, due to the dilatory tactics adopted
by the appellant and the other co-Accused, the Trial Court is not even in a
position to frame charges against the Accused. Now, the case against A8 has
been split up and the case is posted for framing of charges against the
remaining Accused.
14. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the de facto
complainant, it is found that the de facto complainant had already approached
this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18690 of 2024, seeking an expeditious trial of
S.C.No.75 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
(PCR), Tirunelveli and this Court also directed the Trial Court to dispose of the
case as early as possible without granting long adjournments beyond fifteen
days. From the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is
clear that charges have not yet been framed. Therefore, at this juncture, if the
appellant is released on bail, it would not be conducive for the speedy disposal
of the above case.
15. Further, on careful perusal of the records, this Court found that the
Trial Court, after considering the relevant facts, cancelled the bail and the said
order was not challenged by the appellant herein. The Trial Court has cited the
same as one of the grounds for rejecting bail. This Court finds no reason to
interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal
Appeal is dismissed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station,
Tirunelveli City.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station,
Tirunelveli City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) No. 983 of 2026
S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Indu
Crl.A(MD) No.983 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 06:46:08 pm )