Allowed

Harikrishnan v. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Jun 2026CRL MP/6242/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to the petitioner, a Sections 324 IPC convict, noting that lower courts relied on conjectures and the revision raised substantial grounds favoring acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence and grant of bail with conditions of surrender, personal bond with sureties, monthly court appearances, and suspension of fine realization.

Harikrishnan Vs State rep. by, The Inspector of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026 IN CRL RC NO. 814 OF 2026

¶7

Harikrishnan, S/o.Subramanian, Sarateri, Kangeyankurichi, Udayar Palayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Udayar Palayam Police Station, Ariyalur District. Crime No.76/2015

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer:- To suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur made in Crl.A.No.15 of 2024 dated 12/03/2026 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Jayankondam in C.C.No.221/2017 dated 11.06.2024 and release the petitioner on bail and thus render justice.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Sivaraman

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Dinesh, GA(Criminal Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, by the Revision Petitioner, praying to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur made in Crl.A.No.15 of 2024 dated 12/03/2026 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable and confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the

¶17

Page1 of 8

¶18

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

¶19

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026

¶20

Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Jayankondam in C.C.No.221/2017 dated 11.06.2024 and to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, till the disposal of the instant Criminal Revision Case.

¶21

By the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 324 of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. The impugned judgement judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the Trial Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, by its impugned judgement of conviction and sentence and order.

¶22

Challenging the above said judgement of conviction and sentence and order of the lower appellate court, the Revision Petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision Case, along with the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

¶23

This Court heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh, the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent and considered their submissions and also perused materials placed before this Court.

¶24

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the Petitioner was not even available in the scene of occurrence and that he has not involved in any such activities and that there is no evidence, connecting the Petitioner with the alleged

¶25

Page2 of 8

¶26

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

¶27

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026

¶28

occurrence and that both the courts below have failed to consider the entire evidence, in a proper and perspective manner and that the judgments passed by both the Courts below were based on surmises and conjectures, without considering the entire evidence on record.

¶29

It is further argued that due to pendency of the criminal cases before this High Court, there is a blinking chance that in the near future, this Criminal Revision Case will be finally heard and decided. It is further submitted that there are arguable points in this Criminal Revision Case and the Revision Petitioner has a fair chance of success in this Criminal Revision Case. Thus, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has prayed for suspension of sentence and bail, till the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶30

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the Revision Petitioner have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the Court, whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions, which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The Revision Petitioner undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of Revision.

¶31

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent has

¶32

Page3 of 8

¶33

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

¶34

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026

¶35

opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and submits that the judgements passed by the Courts below are as per the law, after considering the entire evidence and thus, the relief sought

¶36

by the Revision Petitioner, at this stage, be refused by this Court.

¶37

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision

¶38

Petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent, this Court is of the view that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the impugned judgments were passed, without considering the entire materials placed before it and during the Trial, the Revision Petitioner was also on bail.

¶39

10.Further, it is observed that when the accused have been under incarceration for sometime and when there are points in the Revision, which favour the accused, then the Courts should not shy from granting suspension of sentence, as the liberty of the individual would be at stake, if the revision results in acquittal at a later point of time. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odhisha reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 533 is of relevance.

¶40

11.The Revision Petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the Revision, which require detailed appraisal. Further, the Revision is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Revision Petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail.

¶41

Page4 of 8

¶42

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

¶43

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026

¶44

12.Accordingly, pending the Criminal Revision Case, the relief of suspension of

¶45

sentence and bail is granted to Revision Petitioner, namely, Harikrishnan, S/o.Subramaniyan, on the following conditions:-

¶46

i. The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, the Revision Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond, along with two sureties for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each and subject to furnishing an undertaking that he will co-operate in the hearing of the present Revision.

¶47

ii. The Revision Petitioner and sureties shall affix their Photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the bond and the above said Court may obtain copies of their Aadhaar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶48

iii. The realization of fine, if any, shall also remain suspended during the pendency of the present Revision.

¶49

iv. The Revision Petitioner shall appear before the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur, once in every month, ie., on the first working day, commencing from the month of July 2026, at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶50

On acceptance of his bail bonds and sureties, the Trial Court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on records of this Revision.

¶51

With the above directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.

¶52

15-06-2026

¶53

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶54

Page5 of 8

¶55

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

¶56

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026

¶57

SRCM

¶58

__________ Page6 of 8

¶59

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

¶60

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026

¶61

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

¶62

SRCM

¶63

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026 IN CRL RC NO. 814 OF 2026

¶64

15-06-2026

¶65

__________ Page7 of 8

¶66

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

¶67

CRL MP No. 6242 of 2026

¶68

¶69

, The Inspector of Police, Udayar Palayam Police Station, Ariyalur District.

¶70

The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur

¶71

The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Jayankondam

¶72

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras

¶73

__________ Page8 of 8

¶74

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

Harikrishnan v. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikrishnan v. State rep. by, The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariprasath Vs State Represented by, The Inspector of Police

Dakhsinamoorthy Vs Dhanalakshmi

M.Shyam Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police

R. Sharanya Vs R.B.Prasath

E.Gowtham Vs v.B.Srimathi

Saravana Kumar .R Vs Muthukumar