(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 14 -A(2) of the SC/ST Act to allow the criminal appeal by setting aside the order passed in CrlMP(MD)No.96 of 2026 dated 22.04.2026 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Case under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi and enlarge the appellant on bail concerned in Crime No.384 of 2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent police.)

1. This criminal appeal is filed by accused No.3 in SC.No.14 of 2026, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Case under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi dismissing the bail petition filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant was arrested by the 2nd respondent on 20.12.2025 in connection with Crime No.384 of 2025 on the file the 2nd respondent that this appellant along with two others have murdered one Sudalaimuthu. The case in Crime No.384 of 2025 is registered for the offence under Sections 296(b) and 103 of BNS and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The trial court by its order dated 22.04.2026 rejected the bail petition filed by the appellant in CrlMP.No.96 of 2026 and challenging the same, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant who was arrested on 20.12.2025 is in jail for the past 7 months. According to him, the investigation in Crime No.384 of 2025 was already concluded, final report has been filed and it has also been taken on file in SC.No.14 of 2026. He further submits that the case has been registered as against 4 persons, however accused No.4 has been deleted. A2 has been granted bail. This appellant is in jail for the past 7 months. The learned counsel further submits that this appellant has been roped that the appellant went along with A1 to the place of occurrence, just prior to the occurrence and enquired about the son of Irattaimuthu. He did not contact A1 prior to the commission of offence. According to the prosecution case, this offence was committed by A1 and A2 and however the appellant has been arrested based on the statement of some witnesses that the appellant had accompanied A1 to the village prior to the occurrence. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks bail to the appellant.

4. The learned Government Advocate confirms that A2 has been released on bail by this court vide order dated 06.07.2026 in Crl A(MD)No. 686 of 2026. A4 has been deleted from this case. He also confirmed that the appellant was not present at the time of occurrence. However, he accompanied A1 to the occurrence village prior to the occurrence. He further submits that the appellant is having 18 previous cases registered for the offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate opposes bail to the appellant.

5. Since this case has been registered under the SC/ST(POA) Act, this court on 15.07.2026 ordered notice to the 3rd respondent / defacto complainant. The 3rd respondent has been served and her name has also been printed. However, there was no representation for the 3rd respondent. Since it is a case of murder and there was no representation for the 3rd respondent, this court by order dated 24.07.2026 appointed legal aid counsel to defend the 3rd respondent.

6. The learned legal aid counsel submits that a specific complaint has been lodged as against A4, however he has been deleted from this case without any valid reasons. He further submits that it is a broad daylight murder and this occurrence had taken place on the motive due to the questions raised by the villagers as against the excess price charged for the liquor by the bar management. He also submits that in the event if the appellant is released on bail, he may tamper the evidence and the presence of the appellant has been noticed by some of the eye witnesses prior to the occurrence along with A1. Therefore, the learned legal aid counsel opposes bail.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

8. This appellant was arrested in connection with Crime No.384 of 2025 on 20.12.2025. The overt act attributed as against the appellant is that this appellant along with A1 went to the occurrence village, just prior to the occurrence. A1 is said to have verified the whereabouts of the son of Irattaimuthu. The occurrence had taken place at about 10.30am. Admittedly, this appellant did not accompany other accused to the place of occurrence. It is a case of broad daylight murder and it has also been witnessed by some of the villagers. The investigation has been completed, final report has been filed and it is also taken on file in SC No.14 of 2026 and the same is pending for trial. A2, who has accompanied A1 to the place occurrence and involved in the offence, has been granted bail by this court in CrlA(MD)No.686 of 2026. Considering the overt act attributed as against the appellant and his period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to this appellant, however, with certain conditions:

                   (i) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.,1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Case under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi.

                   (ii) The appellant shall file an affidavit before the respondent police that the appellant will not misuse this liberty and will not indulge in any further offence and he will be available for the trial.

                   (iii) The appellant shall report before the trial court daily at 10.30am.

                   (iv)If the appellant changes his residence, the same shall be informed to the respondent police immediately with correct address.

                   (v) If the appellant violates any of the conditions, the respondent police shall move an application to cancel the order of suspension of sentence of imprisonment.

9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Case under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi in CrlMP(MD)No.96 of 2026 dated 22.04.2026 is set aside.

10. The Legal Services Authority, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rs.Ten Thousand) to the learned legal aid counsel.