Dismissed¶41

Santhosh v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Iluppur

Madras HC23 Jun 2026CRL A(MD)/643/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC (Madurai Bench), 23.06.2026, B.Pugalendhi J., CRL A(MD)Nos.643 & 655 of 2026 — bail refused to accused 3 and 4 at investigation stage; alleged murder staged as hit-and-run; Ss.103(1) and 109 BNS r/w S.3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act; appeals under S.14A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the stage of investigation and the nature of the offence, this court was not inclined to grant bail to the appellants, and both criminal appeals were dismissed. ¶41

Santhosh Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.180 of 2026 whose bail petitions were dismissed by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases, Pudukottai, should be enlarged on bail.

¶29

Court's answer

Considering the stage of investigation and the nature of the offence, this court was not inclined to grant bail to the appellants, and both criminal appeals were dismissed.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused at investigation stage — CRL A(MD)Nos.643 and 655 of 2026 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, 23.06.2026, B.PUGALENDHI, J.): Appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by Santhosh and Gopalakrishnan, accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.180 of 2026 of Viralimalai Police Station, Pudukottai District, against the orders dated 20.05.2026 (CrlMP.No.152 of 2026) and 21.05.2026 (CrlMP.No.156 of 2026) of the learned Special Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukottai, dismissing their bail petitions. Case registered for offences under Sections 103(1) and 109 of BNS r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act: on 01.05.2026 an unidentified four wheeler dashed the two wheeler carrying the deceased (one Sivagnanam) and the defacto complainant, who died; defence pleaded innocence and attributed implication to A1's confession and a phone call, while counsel for the defacto complainant urged it was cold-blooded murder projected as a hit-and-run accident, with A3 engaging A1, A2 and A4 on account of previous motive and A4 communicating the deceased's movements; counsel also invoked Section 106 of BNS for the alternative hit-and-run scenario. Investigation identified the offending vehicle as a TATA Ace used by A1 with a bogus registration number; A1's confession states A4 watched and informed on the deceased's movements; WhatsApp call details among the accused were awaited. Held, considering the stage of investigation and the nature of offence, bail declined and both appeals dismissed; the Legal Services Authority was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the legal aid counsel Ms.M.Ashwini.

¶1

CRL A(MD)No.643 and 655 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 23.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI CRL A(MD)No.643 and 655 of 2026

¶6

Santhosh

¶7

... Appellant in CrlA(MD)No.643 of 2026

¶8

Gopalakrishnan

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

in CrlA(MD)No.655 of 2026

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Viralimalai Police Station, Pudukottai District. [Crime No.180 of 2026]

¶13

2.The Inspector of Police, Viralimalai Police Station, Pudukottai District. [Crime No.180 of 2026]

¶14

3.Nagaraj ... Respondents

¶15

Appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 20.05.2026 in CrlMP.No.152 of 2026 and 21.05.2026 in CrlMP.No.156 of 2026 on the file of the Special Sessions

¶16

1/7

¶17

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

¶18

CRL A(MD)No.643 and 655 of 2026

¶19

Judge (FAC), Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukottai and set aside the same and enlarge the appellant in connection with Crime No.180 of 2026 on the file of the 2^nd respondent police by allowing these criminal appeals.

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.T.Eashwar in CrlA(MD)No.643 of 2026 : Mr.P.Aju Tagore in CrlA(MD)No.655 of 2026 For R1 and R2 : Mr.V.Moushica, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) in both Appeals

¶21

For R3 : Ms.M.Ashwini Legal Aid Counsel in Crl A(MD)No.643 of 2026 : Mr.R.Mohana Sundaram in Crl A(MD)No.655 of 2026

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellants are accused Nos.3 and 4 in crime No.180 of 2026

¶24

on the file of the 2^nd respondent police and they were arrested on 18.05.2026 and are in jail now. These appeals are filed as against the order dated 20.05.2026 in CrlMP.No.152 of 2026 and 21.05.2026 in CrlMP.No.156 of 2026 by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukottai dismissing the bail petitions filed by the appellants.

¶25

2/7

¶26

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

¶27

CRL A(MD)No.643 and 655 of 2026

¶28

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2026 when the defacto complainant and the deceased were travelling in a two wheeler on Viralimalai – Keeranur road near Thayagam Kaapakam, an unidentified four wheeler dashed against them and consequently the deceased succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital and the defacto complainant has sustained injuries.

¶29

3.The learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants are innocents and they have not committed any offence. They have been implicated based on the confessions statement recorded from accused No.1 and except a call from their phone to A4, there is no other material to connect these appellants with the offence. The appellants are in jail for 40 days. Therefore, they seek bail.

¶30

4.There was no representation for the defacto complainant in CrlA(MD)No.643 of 2026 on 17.06.2026. Since this case is registered for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 109 of BNS r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, this court appointed Ms.M.Ashwini, Advocate, as legal aid counsel to represent the case on behalf of the defacto complainant.

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

CRL A(MD)No.643 and 655 of 2026

¶34

5.Mr.R.Mohana Sundaram, learned counsel entered appearance for the defacto complainant in CrlA(MD)No.643 of 2026.

¶35

6.The learned legal aid counsel and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant submits that it is a case of cold blooded murder and projected as a hit and run accident. Accused No.1 has given confession statement that accused No.3 and the deceased had previous motive and therefore, accused No.3 had engaged accused Nos.1,2 and 4 to kill the deceased. They further submit that without the involvement of accused No.4 by informing the activities of the deceased to accused No.1, this murder would not have taken place. The defacto complainant has no motive with any of the accused, however, he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted as an inpatient in the Government Hospital. Even assuming that if it is a hit and run accident, it is an offence under Section 106 of BNS, when death is caused by negligence. The appellants along with A2 have acted in tracking and communicating the movements of the deceased and the defacto complainant to accused No.1.

¶36

7.This court has considered the rival submissions made.

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

CRL A(MD)No.643 and 655 of 2026

¶40

8.The case in Crime No.180 of 2026 has been registered for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 109 of BNS r/w Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. One Sivagnanam and the defacto complainant were travelling in a two wheeler on 01.05.2026 and at that point of time, the deceased was killed due to an unidentified four wheeler dashed against them and the defacto complainant sustained injuries on his right leg and right hand. On the complaint of the defacto complainant the said case was registered. The respondent police during the course of investigation identified the offending vehicle as TATA Ace and it was used by accused No.1 with bogus registration number and accused No.1 has given confession statement that accused No.4 had watched the movements of the deceased and has informed him and thereafter he has committed this offence. The investigation agency has collected some materials that there were certain calls made among the accused through WhatsApp and they have taken steps to collect those details and awaiting the same.

¶41

9.Considering the stage of investigation and the nature of offence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellants and accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

¶42

5/7

¶43

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

¶44

CRL A(MD)No.643 and 655 of 2026

¶45

10.This court places its appreciation to the learned legal aid

¶46

counsel Ms.M.Ashwini, for effectively representing the case of the defacto complainant. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand] to the legal aid counsel.

23.06.2026

DSK