Kaviyarasan vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.

Court
Madras High Court

CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.A(MD) No.912 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011044952026}
Kaviyarasan
..Appellant/4th Accused
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai Town,
Pudukkottai District.
2. State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by the Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.68 of 2026)
3. Pushpalatha
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 of BNSS
r/w. Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, to set aside the order dated
30.06.2026 under Cr.M.P.No.196 of 2026 on the file of the learned
Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act Cases, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai
District and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.68 of 2026 on such
terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper.
For Appellant: Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
For Respondent: Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 08:42:45 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order declining bail by
the learned Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act, Pudukkottai, in
Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2026.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant is arrayed as A4 before the Trial Court. It is the case of the
prosecution that, due to previous enmity, one Dinesh was murdered by
the appellant herein and other co-accused. The prosecution has projected
a case as if it is a case of eyewitnesses. However, it is the consistent case
of the defence that the occurrence happened in a secluded place and there
were no witnesses. In this case, the trial has already commenced. The
alleged eyewitness, the defacto complainant, was examined as PW1
before the Trial Court. PW1 was subjected to cross-examination, wherein
she clearly admitted that she had seen the dead body of her son after
removing the tarpaulin placed over the corpse, which clearly signifies that
she is not an eyewitness. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant
contended that, in this case, the services of sniffer dogs were utilised,
which also clearly discloses that it is not a case of eyewitnesses. That is,
if the prosecution had known the involvement of the appellant and other
co-accused, they would not have used the services of sniffer dogs.
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 08:42:45 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
Therefore, subsequently, the case was fabricated against this appellant
and other co-accused as if the alleged eyewitnesses had seen the
occurrence.
3. The prosecution has not produced all the eyewitnesses at a time,
but they are all being fielded one by one. Therefore, an application to
defer the cross-examination was filed and permitted by the Trial Court.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
appellant has been in custody since 13.03.2026 and has been in
incarceration for about seven months. The appellant is co-operating with
the trial and he has undertaken that he will face the trial through counsel
and will not dispute his identity before the learned Trial Court. An
affidavit was sworn to that effect. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the
order passed by the learned Special Court for trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that one
Dinesh was murdered by the appellant herein and eight other accused. A1
to A4 are the assailants and the others guarded the place while the
commission of crime. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that it is a clear case of eyewitness account. Though the
prosecution has not examined PW1 to PW3, the defence has cross-
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 08:42:45 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
examined only PW1 and they cannot take advantage of the slip answer
given by the prosecution witness. It is a highly sensitive murder case and
there is a specific overt act alleged against this appellant. The eyewitness
account clearly indicates the guilt of the appellant herein. Though this
Court has granted bail to the co-accused, they are not the actual
assailants. Further, the appellant has two previous cases and therefore,
she strongly opposed the grant of bail to the appellant.
5. Notice was issued to the mother of the deceased / defacto
complainant. She is present today before this Court in person and is
represented by counsel. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant
submitted that her son was murdered in her presence by the appellant and
other co-accused. The victim is facing threats from the appellant that the
eyewitnesses shall not depose before the Trial Court. If the accused are
released on bail, it would demoralise the prosecution witnesses and deter
them from deposing before the Trial Court. Therefore, she strongly
opposed the grant of bail to the appellant.
6. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions put forth by either side.
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 08:42:45 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
7. On careful perusal of the records, it is found that it is a case of
the murder of one Dinesh. Though the learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the prosecution's case that it is a case of eyewitnesses is
falsified by the cross-examination of PW1, this Court does not venture to
make any comments, as the matter is pending before the Trial Court. The
fact remains that the investigation has already been completed. The trial
has already commenced. The prosecution witnesses, PW1 to PW3, have
already been examined. Out of them, PW1 was cross-examined by the
defence. The appellant could satisfy the Trial Court and get the cross-
examination of the other eyewitnesses deferred, as all the witnesses were
not produced at a time.
8. The appellant was arrested on 15.03.2026 and has been in
incarceration since then. Though apprehension was raised by the learned
counsel for the defacto complainant that the release of the appellant
would demoralise the prosecution witnesses, it could be seen that the
witnesses have already deposed before the Trial Court. Further, the
appellant has undertaken that he will co-operate with the speedy disposal
of the trial and will not dispute his identity during the trial.
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 08:42:45 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
9. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the appellant has certain previous bad antecedents, he is on bail in those
cases as well. Therefore, considering all the above circumstances, this
Court is of the considered view that the principle is that bail is the rule
and jail is the exception. Therefore, until the guilt is proven, the appellant
is presumed to be innocent and hence, even though he is facing graver
charges, this Court is inclined to grant bail. However, with stringent
following conditions:
i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with
two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the
learned Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act Cases,
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
ii) The appellant and the sureties shall submit a copy
of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by
the Government in proof of their residence address;
iii) The appellant and the sureties shall file an
affidavit of undertaking before the respondent police that
the appellant will not involve in any offence in future.
iv) The appellant shall report before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode daily at 10.30 a.m. and
5.30 p.m., until further orders, except the days, on which
his appearance is required before the trial Court.
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 08:42:45 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
v) The appellant shall co-operate with the trial and
shall not dispute his identity during the trial.
vi) On violation of any of the above conditions by the
appellant, the respondent police is at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of the bail.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai Town,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 08:42:45 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Indu
CRL A(MD) No. 912 of 2026
16-10-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 08:42:45 pm )