Accused in an SC/ST (POA) Act case sought bail citing delayed trial and disruption of studies. The court noted reports on pre-trial meeting difficulties and counselling given to parties, held bail could not be granted without assurance of speedy trial cooperation, and directed the Sessions Judge to conduct the trial expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 28.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
Thangam ... Appellant/Accused No.18 Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi South, Thoothukudi.
2.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi. (Crime No.533 of 2019)
3.P.K.Ramkumar ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.705 of 2024, dated 20.01.2025, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi and set aside the same and enlarge the appellant on bail by allowing this appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Nedumaran For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R3 : Mrs.Seenisyed Amma for Mr.R.Amarnath
1 / 8
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
JUDGEMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi in Crl.M.P.No.705 of 2024, dated 20.01.2025.
in the cases involving the appellant and various other accused, this Court had thought it fit to call for a Report from the learned Sessions Judge as to the delay in proceeding the trial and had also given directions to convene a PreTrial Meeting by inviting the Public Prosecutor, the Officers of the Prosecuting Agency and the defence side Advocates. A direction has also been given to the District Administration to convene Peace Committee Meeting within the prison premises by inviting the defacto complainant, family members of the defacto complainant and the accused to give appropriate and professional counselling for the purpose of promoting peace of mind among the parties and to prevent the engagement of both sides and their persons in committing further criminal acts as retaliation which might lead to loss of several lives.
2 / 8
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
seen that he has expressed his difficulties in arriving at a plan for trial during the Pre-Trial Meeting. The objections made by the defence side counsel through a Memo is attached with the Report. It is seen that the defence side has objections with regard to the manner in which the copies of the charge sheet have been furnished to the accused. It is alleged that the copies of the charge sheet have been prepared by the prosecution and it is different from the original charge sheet filed before the Court. In some serious cases involving many accused, there is a practice that the prosecuting agency themselves would furnish the required number of copies of charge sheet to be furnished to the accused. That should not be mistaken by the learned counsel for the defence and even if there is any difference between the charge sheet furnished and the original charge sheet, that can very well be referred during the cross examination of the Investigation Officer. I do not think that can be the reason for not arriving at any consensus as to the framing of trial plan, with the active co-operation of the defence side.
possible to fix any trial plan and proceed with the trial, nothing would prevent the learned Sessions Judge from proceeding with the trial as per Section 14 (3)
3 / 8
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
of SC/ST (POA) Act. Now, it is learnt that the copies have been furnished to all the accused in prison and charges will also be framed shortly and thereafter, the trial will be conducted.
for the trial, it may not be possible to grant bail to the accused. It is learnt from such Reports that not only the appellant, but all the other accused have got different and specific personal and family circumstances and they find it difficult to continue in prison for a long time. In the absence of any assurance for speedy trial, it may not be possible to release the accused on bail.
4 / 8
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
5 / 8
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
his anxiety is understandable, no special consideration can be shown to the appellant in the given situation. Other accused who have got their own special reasons are also languishing in prison. However, there is no assurance for cooperation for speedy trial also.
of .
28.08.2025
mbi
6 / 8
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi South, Thoothukudi.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7 / 8
Crl. A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.
mbi
Crl.A.(MD)No.573 of 2025
28.08.2025
8 / 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused in a SC/ST (POA) Act case should be enlarged on bail in the absence of assurance of speedy trial and defence cooperation.
How the trial should proceed when no consensus on a trial plan could be reached at the Pre-Trial Meeting.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Thangam
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi South, Thoothukudi
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi
P.K.Ramkumar
R.N.Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
