Dismissed¶41

Nayeem v. The State rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Jul 2026CRL OP/17076/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC dismisses CRL OP 17076/2026: repeat Section 91 CrPC plea for CDR/tower location of PW 1,2,5,6 in S.C.No.106/2024 (murder, SC/ST(POA) Act Special Court, Tiruppur) denied - earlier identical petition withdrawn (Crl.OP 14913/2026), renewal belated at defence stage; contradictions to be argued before trial court; defence witnesses may be examined same day with minimum 10 days for written arguments; Section 528 BNSS petition; connected Crl.M.P. closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal original petition dismissed; connected criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.11352 of 2026) closed. Court endorsed examination of all three defence witnesses on the same day, observing that a minimum of 10 days should be given thereafter, if required, for the petitioner to review the evidence, prepare written arguments and argue. ¶41

Nayeem Vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Original Petition seeking to set aside the trial court's order dated 22.06.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2026 (declining summons of call records of PW 1, 2, 5 and 6 under Section 91 CrPC) should be allowed. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Finding no merits, the criminal original petition stands dismissed: the identical prayer was earlier made and withdrawn (via Crl.O.P.No.14913 of 2026), the present application is belatedly filed at the defence stage, and contradictions already elicited in cross-examination are for the petitioner to argue before the trial court.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The very same prayer cannot be made once again after the petitioner withdrew it, particularly at the defence stage when examination of PW1 to PW4 is already completed.

¶31

Key takeaways

General observation: the more serious the offence, the more liberal the court should be in granting opportunity - though here the Court found absolutely no scope for it given the earlier filing and withdrawal and the belated defence-stage filing.obiter¶33
No exception can be taken to the trial court's view that all three defence witnesses be examined on the same day; being only three witnesses, it is in the best interest of justice.ratio¶40
If the petitioner requires time thereafter to go through the evidence and prepare written arguments and argue, a minimum of 10 days should be given to him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.) dismissed CRL OP No. 17076 of 2026 filed under Section 528 BNSS by Nayeem seeking to set aside the order dated 22.06.2026 of the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases Under SC/ST(POA) Act, Tiruppur, in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2026 in S.C.No.106 of 2024, whereby summoning of call records (mobile numbers of PW 1, 2, 5 and 6, sought under Section 91 CrPC on grounds of contradictory deposition) was held unnecessary in a murder trial then at the defence evidence stage. Dismissal rested on (i) the identical prayer having earlier been made and withdrawn (Crl.O.P.No.14913 of 2026 dismissed as withdrawn), and (ii) belated renewal at the defence stage after PW1-PW4 were examined, with cross-examined contradictions to be argued before the trial court. The Court noted in passing that the graver the offence the more liberal courts should be, but found no scope here. On the ancillary grievance, the Court saw no exception to the trial court examining all three defence witnesses on the same day, subject to a minimum of 10 days thereafter, if required, for written arguments; the connected Crl.M.P. was closed.

¶1

2026:MHC:2543

¶2

CRL OP No. 17076 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 02-07-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 17076 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.11352 of 2026

¶7

Nayeem, S/o.Irfanudeen, D.No.6, Ponneri Nagar, Saratha Nagar, Gulam Khadhar Garden, Tiruppur - 641 603.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The State rep by the Inspector of Police Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS to Set aside the order dated 22.06.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2026 in S.C.No.106 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Special Court for Trial of Cases Under SC/ST(POA) Act, Tiruppur.

¶13

For Petitioner(s):

¶14

Mr. J.Jayan

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Rajasekaran, Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)

¶16

Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

2026:MHC:2543

¶19

CRL OP No. 17076 of 2026

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Original petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 22.6.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2026 in S.C.No.106 of 2024 on the

¶22

file of the learned Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, Tirupur.

¶23

Upon hearing the learned councsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that the charge against the petitioner is one of murder. When the trial is going on and now is in the defence evidence stage, this application is filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to summon the call records in respect of the mobile numbers of PW 1, 2, 5 and 6. The ground on which the details are sought is that, when all the 4 witnesses were examined, they have deposed about their whereabouts on the previous day of occurrence, and how they came to know about the offense, etc.

¶24

There is a material contradiction between the deposition of these witnesses. It is also the case of the accused that they seem to have visited the

¶25

place prior to the occurrence and now they are lying about the same in the evidence. If the call record details and tower locations are there, it would enable the accused to contradict them.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

2026:MHC:2543

¶29

CRL OP No. 17076 of 2026

¶30

I have considered the said submission made by the learned council for the petitioner and also heard the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal).

¶31

It can be seen that firstly, on the very same purpose, the petitioner had earlier filed Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2026 and the same was dismissed, as against which, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Crl.O.P.No.14913 of 2026 which was also dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, when the petitioner had an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses by using the said document and he had filed the application, ultimately, he withdrew the prayer. The very same prayer cannot be now made once again, that too at the defence stage, when already examination of PW1 to PW4 is completed.

¶32

Secondly, the trial court has also considered the evidence, the nature of contradiction, etc. alleged by the petitioner and concluded that summoning of the said records would not be necessary. Further, it can be seen that when the petitioner is seeking for call records, the records are sought for the year 2024.

¶33

For all the above reasons, there will be no useful purpose served in allowing the application, though this Court is conscious of the fact that the more serious the offence, the more liberal the court should be in granting the opportunity, In this case, there is absolutely no scope for grant of opportunity in

¶34

Page3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

2026:MHC:2543

¶37

CRL OP No. 17076 of 2026

¶38

as much as earlier the very same petition is filed and it was withdrawn. And secondly, it is now very belatedly filed at the defence stage. Further, in respect of contradiction, when the petitioner has cross examined, it is for the petitioner to argue his case before the trial court. Therefore, finding no merits, the criminal original petition stands dismissed.

¶39

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because the direction is given for speedy speedy disposal, ample time is not given, even there are 3 defence witnesses to be examined, the trial court has directed, all the witness to be examined on the same day.

¶40

I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the view of the trial court to examine all the 3 witnesses on the same day, as it is only 3 witnesses and it will be in the best interest of the justice to examine only on the same day. If the petitioner requires time thereafter to go through all the evidence and prepare written arguments and argue, I am of the view that, if a minimum of 10 days can be given to the petitioner.

¶41