Allowed¶33

Nethaji v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC29 Apr 2025CRL MP(MD)/5178/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; Section 430(1) BNSS; Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act; caste-name abuse; knife attack; interested witnesses; contradictory eyewitness versions; arguable points; Crl.MP(MD) No.5178 of 2025; Crl.A(MD) No.459 of 2025; SplSC.No.32 of 2021; Crime No.348 of 2011; Dindigul; Nilakottai; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice B. Pugalendhi; decided 29.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment pending disposal of Crl.A(MD) No.459 of 2025; petitioner enlarged on bail on a bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul, subject to reporting before the trial Court on the first working day of every month. ¶33

Nethaji Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Special Court in SplSC.No.32 of 2021 should be suspended and the petitioner enlarged on bail pending disposal of Crl.A(MD) No.459 of 2025. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal Crl.A(MD) No.459 of 2025.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has raised certain arguable points which can be considered only during the final hearing of the appeal; since the appeal could not be taken up immediately for want of time, the Court was inclined to allow the petition.

¶29

Key takeaways

The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul, and shall report before the trial Court on the first working day of every month.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal (S.430(1) BNSS): The petitioner, convicted by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul (SplSC.No.32 of 2021, judgment dated 18.03.2025) under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act — 6 months simple imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine under each head — having raised arguable points regarding contradictory eyewitness versions and interested witnesses, and his admitted appeal (Crl.A(MD) No.459 of 2025) not being capable of immediate final hearing, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed the petition, suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone pending disposal of the appeal, and enlarged the petitioner on bail on a bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum, conditioned on reporting before the trial Court on the first working day of every month.

¶1

Crl.MP(MD) No.5178 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.MP(MD) No.5178 of 2025 in Crl.A(MD) No.459 of 2025

Nethaji

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai Sub-Division,Dindigul District. [Crime No.348 of 2011]

¶10

2.Pagutharivu ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS to suspend the sentence passed by the judgment dated 18.03.2025 made in SplSC.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Dindigul District and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumaran For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl Side) for R1 : No representation for R2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner / sole accused in Spl.SC.No.32 of 2021 was found guilty by the

¶15

Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Dindigul,

¶16

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

¶17

1/5

¶18

Crl.MP(MD) No.5178 of 2025

¶19

convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the petitioner has filed an appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.459 of 2025 along with this petition to suspend the sentence imposed on him by the trial court. The appeal has been admitted by this Court.

¶20

2.The complaint against the petitioner is that he abused the 2^nd respondent by using his caste name and attempted to attack him with knife.

¶21

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that except PW2 all other witnesses are relatives and they interested witnesses. The alleged eye witnesses PW2, PW3 and PW10 are contradicting with each other and three different versions are projected as to commission of offence. There is no independent witness. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has not considered the same. The sentence is 6 months simple imprisonment. Therefore,

¶22

the learned Counsel prayed that the sentence be suspended pending the appeal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/5

¶24

Crl.MP(MD) No.5178 of 2025

¶25

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that

¶26

the prosecution has proved its case and the trial Court has considered the prosecution witnesses and the documents and convicted the petitioner.

¶27

5.The 2^nd respondent/ defacto complainant has been served with notice and name has been printed in the cause list. However there is no representation for 2^nd respondent.

¶28

6.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the material placed on record.

¶29

7.The petitioner has raised certain arguable points, which can be considered only during the final hearing of the appeal. However the appeal could not be taken up for final hearing for want of time. Considering the points raised by the petitioner and for the reason that the appeal could not be taken up immediately, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

¶30

8.Accordingly this petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

3/5

¶32

Crl.MP(MD) No.5178 of 2025

¶33

imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Dindigul. The petitioner shall report before the trial Court on the first working day of every month.

¶34

/ TRUE COPY /

¶35

/05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶36

DSK

¶37

¶38

1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC/ST(POA) ACT DINDIGUL.

¶39

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NILAKOTTAI SUB DIVISION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶40