(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, 2015, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Court of Sessions Division of Ranipet District in Crl.M.P.No.694 of 2026 and that same was dismissed on 14.05.2026 and enlarge the appellant / petitioner on bail in connection with the Spl.S.C.No.40 of 2025 pending trial on the file of the Court of Sessions Division of Ranipet District.)

1. In continuation of the order passed by this Court on 13.07.2026, the same is extracted hereunder:

                   “This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, who is facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.40 of 2025, pending before the Special Court, Ranipet, for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 376, 379 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

                   2. The appellant had filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.694 of 2026, which came to be dismissed on 14.05.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

                   3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and the deceased were in a love relationship. Since they belonged to different communities, their marriage was not accepted by their respective families. Thereafter, the deceased married one Gopinath/R4, and they were residing in Chennai. It is now projected that the victim / deceased went missing on 22.10.2022, pursuant to which a woman missing case was registered. Later, after the body of the deceased surfaced in a lake, the case was altered to the present offences.

                   3.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the defacto complainant is the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), who noticed the body of the deceased floating in the lake and lodged the complaint. Thereafter, the body was identified by the parents of the deceased and her husband/R4. The appellant was arrested on 10.11.2022 and has been in judicial custody ever since, for more than 3 ½ years. He further submitted that the case was initially pending as Spl.S.C.No. 12 of 2023 before the Special Court, Vellore. On the tirfurcation of Vellore District, the case was transferred to the Special Court, Ranipet. The trial commenced only on 19.01.2026. So far, 13 witnesses have been examined. However, the appellant’s earlier counsel, Vinoth Kumar, who had filed the bail application, failed to conduct the trial and consequently, none of the witnesses could be cross-examined.

                   3.2. The learned counsel further submitted that, Advocate, Dinesh Kumar has since filed a change of vakalat before the trial Court on 30.11.2025 and is now ready to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Owing to the appellant’s incarceration, he was unable to give proper instructions to his counsel, resulting in the witnesses not being cross-examined. It was also submitted that certain witnesses were examined without physical presence of the appellant before the trial Court.

                   3.3. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant had earlier filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.1407 of 2023 when the case was pending before the Special Court, Vellore. The said application came to be dismissed and the appellant thereafter preferred Crl.A.No.811 of 2023 before this Court. By order dated 08.08.2024, this Court dismissed the appeal, directing the trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible within the stipulated period. However, no witness was examined thereafter. Subsequently, on transfer of the case, it is now pending before the Special Court, Ranipet and witness are being examined.

                   3.4. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has projected the case as though the appellant, after committing the murder, removed the gold ornaments of the deceased, namely, a gold thali chain, gold earrings, a silver anklet and silver metti. According to the prosecution, the recovery of the said articles was effected on 10.11.2022, the date of the appellant’s arrest.

                   3.5. The learned counsel further submitted that the postmortem doctor, opinion is that body was in a decomposed state, hence unable to give a definite opinion regarding the cause of death, though strangulation could not be ruled out. Hence, the charge of rape and other offences not supported with medical records.

                   3.6. The learned counsel further submitted that, according to the prosecution, the appellant and the deceased were in a love relationship, which continued even after both got married to different spouses and that the telephonic conversations between them establish that they remained in contact even after their respective marriages. These aspects, according to the learned counsel, go to the roots of the case. He further submitted that, due to his prolonged incarceration, the appellant unable to crossexamine the witnesses.

                   4. Mr.Parthiban, Senior Member of the Bar as probono work appeared for the 4th respondent, who is the husband of the deceased, submitted that the appellant had earlier filed a bail application, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a criminal appeal before this Court, which was also dismissed. Hence, reached finality, therefore, a second bail application and the present appeal, cannot be entertained in view of Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act.

                   4.1. He further submitted that so far, 13 witnesses examined and none of them cross-examined. If the appellant is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of his absconding and the entire trial would get stalled. He further submitted that the family members of the deceased firmly believe that it was the appellant who brutally murdered the deceased and thereafter dumped the body in the lake, from where it surfaced several days later. Therefore, he strongly opposed the grant of bail.

                    5. The learned Government Advocate filed a counter affidavit and submitted that a case in Crime No.491 of 2022 was initially registered on 07.11.2022 under Section 174(1) Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was altered to one under Section 302 r/w 201 IPC. The CCTV footage establishes that the appellant had taken the deceased on his bike. Further, one of the witnesses had seen the appellant and the deceased together shortly before the deceased went missing.

                   5.1. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that, so far, 13 witnesses examined and the case is posted to 14.07.2026 for examination of the remaining witnesses. The trial is likely to be concluded shortly without further delay and now, entertaining the bail application at this stage would not be proper. It was further submitted that following the arrest of the appellant on 10.11.2022, a gold thali chain, gold earrings, a silver anklet and silver metti belonging to the deceased were recovered from the appellant.

                   5.2. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the appellant and the deceased were earlier in a love relationship, which later came to an end. Thereafter, the deceased married Gopinath, R4, while the appellant married Jeevitha. It is the prosecution case that the appellant had called the deceased to Walajapet and thereafter took her in his bike, which is corroborated by the CCTV footage. Further, witness had seen the appellant and the deceased travelling together in the bike. It was further submitted when the body recovered it was in a highly decomposed state and could not be identified initially. Subsequently, DNA Test confirmed that the body was that of Shanthi, the wife of the 4th respondent. The prosecution collected the CDRs along with the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

                   5.3. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the appellant was initially represented by Mr.Vinoth Kumar and that subsequently, Mr.Dinesh Kumar filed a change of vakalat on 30.11.2025. He finally submitted that the present case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and each link have been collected and proved, confirming the appellant has committed the murder.

                   6. The learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, undertook to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 13 without causing any delay. He submitted that, when the case is taken up on 14.07.2026, he will file a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and complete the cross-examination of the witnesses on two dates, namely, P.Ws.1 to 6 on 24.07.2026 and P.Ws.7 to 13 on 28.07.2026, subject to the trial Court’s schedule. He further undertook that no delay would be caused in the conduct of the trial and appellant has got deep social roots, he will not evade justice.

                   7. Recording the said undertaking, this Court adjourned the matter to 04.08.2026.”

2. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW1 to PW6 were recalled and cross-examined on 29.07.2026. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 01.08.2026. On that day, as the accused was produced only through virtual mode and not physically before the trial Court, except PW7 and PW11, who are the arrest and recovery witnesses, all the remaining witnesses were cross-examined. Thereafter, the case was posted to 03.08.2026, on which date PW7 and PW11 were also cross-examined. Thus, now all the witnesses, PW1 to PW13 had been cross-examined and the case is posted for further witness on 05.08.2026. The learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to cross-examine the witnesses then and there before the trial Court.

3. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

4. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions;

                   (a) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Court of Sessions Division of Ranipet District;

                   (b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

                   (c) The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates without fail;

                   (d) The appellant shall not give any inconvenience or trouble knowingly or unknowingly to the third respondent, failing which, the bail shall be cancelled without any further reference.

                   (e)The appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

                   (f) The appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

                   (g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

                   (h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

5. With the above directions, the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.694 of 2026 on the file of the Court of Sessions Division of Ranipet District, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.