Disposed

Arulselvan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Sept 2025CRL MP(MD)/12678/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought relaxation of a bail condition imposed on suspension of sentence in a pending criminal revision, requiring daily appearance before the trial court at Nagercoil. As the petitioner was a complying daily wager, the court relaxed the condition to attendance once a month on the first working day and left other conditions unaltered.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arulselvan Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12678 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶3

CRL.M.P(MD)No.12678 of 2025 in CRL.R.C.(MD)No.930 of 2025

¶4

Arulselvan S/o. Jeyaveera Gothandapani, Residing at No. 27, Mudukadu, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶5

2.Selvakumar, S/o. Jeyaveera Gothandapani, Residing at No. 27, Mudukadu, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

¶8

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Peravurani Police Station, Thanjavur District.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Prayer: C-60. To relax the condition imposed by this Court in Crl.MP. (MD).No.9834 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.930 of 2025 dated 28.07.2025.

¶11

For Petitioner : MrA.Arun Prasad

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side) *****

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12678 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed to relax the condition

¶18

imposed on the petitioner in Crl.MP.(MD).No.9834 of 2025 in Crl.R.C. (MD)No.930 of 2025 dated 28.07.2025.

¶19

2.Heard Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the

¶20

respondent.

¶21

3.The short facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, are as follows:-

¶22

i)On 14.09.2019 at around 09.00 am., when the defacto complainant asked the accused to return back 30 sovereigns of gold jewels and other certificates, which were handed over to his father, when he was alive, the accused persons have attacked the de-facto complainant and his wife and threatened them with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, an FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.161 of 2019. The respondent Police, after

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12678 of 2025

¶26

completing the investigation, had filed a final report against the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 294(b)-, 324, 354 and 506(2) IPC of IPC and against the accused No.3 under Sections 294(b) and 354 IPC and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.324 of 2022 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Peravurani. During trial, the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-10 and marked six documents as Ex-P1 to Ex-P6. The accused has neither adduced oral nor documentary evidence.

¶27

ii)The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both sides, had passed a judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2023, convicting the petitioner and other accused accused and sentenced him to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 454 of IPC and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

¶28

iii)Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.56 of 2019 before the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Nagercoil. The learned

¶29

3/8

¶30

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

¶31

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12678 of 2025

¶32

Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nagercoil, by confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶33

4.The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while admitting the Criminal Revision Case, vide order, dated 25.07.2025, had ordered suspension of sentence in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9742 of 2025 in Crl.R.C. (MD)No.917 of 2025, with the following directions:-

¶34

“ 10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. Accordingly, the relief of suspension of sentence is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on him executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil ;

¶36

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity; and

¶37

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court at

¶38

4/8

¶39

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

¶40

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12678 of 2025

¶41

10.30 a.m. on all working days until further orders.”

¶42

5.Today, when the matter is being taken up, Mr.S.Ayyanar Prem Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been complying with the conditions imposed in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9742 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.917 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025, without fail. It was further submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of his family and is working as a daily wager. Thus, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays this Court that the condition No.(iii) of the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9742 of 2025 in Crl.R.C. (MD)No.917 of 2025 imposed on the petitioner may be relaxed and the petitioner may be directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Nagercoil, once in a month.

¶43

6.Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent fairly submits that the petitioner has been complying with the conditions imposed in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9742 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.917 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025 regularly. However, he submits that the conditions imposed in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.

¶44

5/8

¶45

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

¶46

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12678 of 2025

¶47

9742 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.917 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025, are justified and made objection for relaxing the condition No.(iii) of the order, dated 25.07.2025.

¶48

7.Accordingly, after considering the arguments as advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9742 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.917 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025 and after perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the prayer made for relaxation of condition No.(iii) of the order dated 25.07.2025 and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a daily wager, this Court is inclined to relax the condition No.(iii) of the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9742 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.917 of 2025, as follows:-

¶49

“The petitioner shall appear before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Nagercoil, once in a month with effect from October, 2025, ie., on the first working day of Every English Calendar month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.”

¶50

6/8

¶51

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

¶52

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12678 of 2025

¶53

Rest of the conditions imposed in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9742 of 2025

¶54

in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.917 of 2025, dated 25.07.2025, are unaltered.

¶55

8.With the above modification, this Criminal Miscellaneous

¶56

Petition is finally disposed of.

18-09-2025

cmr

7/8

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

¶62

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12678 of 2025

¶63

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

¶64

cmr

¶65

CRL.R.C.(MD)No.1207 of 2025

¶66

18.09.2025

¶67

8/8

¶68

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

Arulselvan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arulselvan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeyakumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

R.Sathish Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Balashanmugam Vs Sumathi

V. Ponner @ Ponnusamy Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs Kalaiselvi

Mohammed Yasar Arafath Vs The State of Tamil Nadu