Dismissed

Kali @ Kalipandi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC16 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/21858/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a bail petition under Sec. 483 of BNSS. The appellant, held for over 700 days, argued delay in trial judgment warranted bail. The court directed the Principal District Judge to expedite the trial but held mere delay is not grounds for bail, citing prior risks of witness interference.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition dismissed; directions issued for expediting the trial.

Kali @ Kalipandi Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.21858 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/12/2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN CRL OP(MD). No.21858 of 2024

¶5

Kali @ Kalipandi, ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Kayathar Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No.404 of 2022. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Iyyappan, Advocate

¶9

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

¶10

PRAYER :-

¶11

For Bail in Crime No.404 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner/Sole Accused herein, who was arrested on 09.11.2022 for the

¶13

alleged offence under Sections 302 IPC @ 302, 341, 294(b) of IPC, in Crime No.404 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/5

¶16

CRL OP(MD). No.21858 of 2024

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that in respect of property situated in Vadakku Ilanthaikulam Village, there was dispute between the deceased and the accused persons. In view of said dispute, RDO proceedings also initiated. At that time, the petitioner threatened the deceased to kill him. The same was informed to the defacto complainant by the deceased. When the complaint was given by the deceased, the respondent police advised them to resolve the issue before the RDO. On 07.11.2022 at about 06.00 a.m., the deceased went to his grove. Later it was informed to the defacto complainant that her husband was found murdered. She went to the spot and took the deceased to the hospital. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

3.On the ground that the petitioner wants to let defence side evidence, the case is pending before the II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi in S.C.No.86 of 2023.

¶19

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) already submitted that the petitioner is having five previous cases. Among which, one case is similar in nature. Already direction was issued by this court to the trial court to complete the trial process within a period of six months, thereafter, second time also one month time was granted to complete the process of trial.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

2/5

¶22

CRL OP(MD). No.21858 of 2024

¶23

5.Earlier bail applications that were filed by the petitioner were dismissed on

¶24

the ground that he may indulge in threatening the witnesses and hamper the trial process.

¶25

6.This petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is in custody for more than 700 days. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the arguments before the trial Court was already over.

¶26

7.Pending the petition report was called for from the trial Court as to the reason for the delay in pronouncing judgment. A detailed report has been submitted by the trial Court stating that due to the establishment of new Court, a clarification was sought by him to the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District.

¶27

8.There shall be a direction to the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, to issue instructions as sought for by the II Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi, immediately. So that the matter can be taken up by the concerned Court. Pending the matter, at the judgment stage may not be proper. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 700 days, that may not be the reason for granting of bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

3/5

¶29

CRL OP(MD). No.21858 of 2024

¶30

9.In view of the letter submitted by the trial Court, with the above said

¶31

directions, this petition stands dismissed.

¶32

sd/16/12/2024 / TRUE COPY / /01/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶33

¶34

¶35

1 THE IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, THOOTHUKUDI.

¶36

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.

¶37

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYATHAR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶38

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶39

COPY TO:

¶40

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THOOTHUKUDI.

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.S.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-15451[I] dated 16/12/2024 )

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

4/5

¶44

CRL OP(MD). No.21858 of 2024

¶45

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.21858 of 2024 Date :16/12/2024

¶46

SS/GSV/SAR- /08/01/2025/ 5P/7C

¶47

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

5/5

Kali @ Kalipandi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kali @ Kalipandi v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Pandiarajan Vs Kuppayee Ammal

Alagarsamy Vs Subbiah

V.Shanthika Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Natarajan Vs Chellapillai

M.Ravichandran Vs Mariyayee @ Jothi

C.Bala Dhandayuthabani Vs City Benefit Fund (Kumbakonam) Ltd.