Allowed¶21

Baskar @ Murugan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Mukkudal

Madras HC30 Jun 2026CRL MP(MD)/12568/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 3473 days; Section 5 Limitation Act; jail appeal by inmate; legal aid to prisoner not provided; Central Prison Palayamkottai; District Legal Services Authority Tirunelveli report called for; conviction appeal S.C.No.139 of 2016 IV Additional Sessions Judge Tirunelveli; Crime No.49 of 2015 Mukkudal Police Station; CRL MP(MD) No.12568 of 2026; Madurai Bench Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 3473 days in filing the appeal condoned; Registry directed to number the appeal if otherwise in order; report called for from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Tirunelveli regarding non-provision of legal aid; matter posted after two weeks. ¶21

Baskar @ Murugan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Mukkudal — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 3473 days in filing the appeal against the conviction and sentence in S.C.No. 139 of 2016 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the supporting affidavit, the delay of 3473 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the Registry is directed to number the appeal if it is otherwise in order.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Noting that the delay is enormous and that legal aid was not given to the petitioner all along, the Registry is directed to call for a report from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Tirunelveli on why the prisoner was not afforded legal aid.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning a delay of 3473 days in filing an appeal against conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No. 139 of 2016 (Judgment dated 06.10.2016), arising out of Crime No. 49 of 2015 of Mukkudal Police Station. The petitioner, incarcerated at Central Prison, Palayamkottai for over 11 years since his arrest on 07.05.2015, could not engage counsel as no family member visited the prison, and the appeal was filed with the help of jail authorities; State counsel took notice without objection. While condoning the delay, the Court observed that the delay was enormous and questioned why legal aid had not been given to the prisoner all along, directing the Registry to call for a report from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Tirunelveli, and posted the matter after two weeks.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30-06-2026

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA

¶5

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12568 of 2026 in CRL A(MD) SR NO. 30304 OF 2026

Baskar @ Murugan

Petitioner(s)

State of Tamilnadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Mukkudal Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No. 49 of 2015)

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner(s): M/s.Baby Sudha (Legl Aid Counsel) For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Christopher, Counsel for State (Crl.Side)

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 3473 days in filing the Appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed upon on the petitioner by the Learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in S.C.No. 139 of 2016 vide Judgment dated 06.10.2016.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble A.D.Jagadish Chandira J.)

¶15

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 3473 days in filing the Appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed upon on the petitioner by the Learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in S.C.No. 139 of 2016 vide Judgment dated 06.10.2016.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that he is incarcerated at Central Prison, Palayamkottai,

¶17

for more than 11 years from his date of arrest on 07.05.2015 and since no one from his

¶18

family had visited the Prison, he could not engage an advocate to prefer appeal in time and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

now with the help of jail authorities, the present appeal has been filed with the abovesaid delay.

¶20

Learned Counsel for State (Crl.Side) who takes notice for the respondent has no objection for the delay being condoned and the appeal being numbered.

¶21

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the supporting affidavit, delay is condoned. Registry is directed to number the appeal if it is otherwise in order.

¶22

Though we have condoned the delay, we find that the delay is enormous and we are surprised that why legal aid has not been given to the petitioner for all along. In this regard, Registry is directed to call for a report from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai and the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Tirunelveli, why the prisoner was not afforded Legal Aid all along.

¶23