(Prayer: The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(a) of SC/ST Act, to set aside the order dated 30.04.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.613/2026 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranipet and to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime.No.381/2025 on the file of the respondent Police by allowing the above Criminal Appeal.)

1. The appellants have preferred the above appeal challenging the dismissal of their bail application filed in Crime No.381 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 61(2), 296(b), 103(1) of BNS, 2023 and 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on account of prior enmity, the appellants along with a juvenile accused, had attacked the deceased with a knife indiscriminately on the vital parts and caused his death. On the compliant given by the brother of the deceased, an FIR was registered. The appellants were arrested on 21.08.2025 and thereafter, they were detained under Act 14 of 1982. After the detention order was quashed, they filed a bail application before the Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2026, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.04.2026.

3. The learned counsels for the appellants would submit that when the case was taken up for hearing my learned Predecessor had directed the appellants to cross-examine PW1 to PW3 as it was reported by the public prosecutor that they were delaying the trial.

4. Though the appeal by both the accused was filed by a counsel, it appears, that A1 had given a change of vakalat.

5. The learned counsel for A2 would submit that A2 had crossexamined PW1 and PW2 as directed by this Court and PW3 turned hostile.

6. The learned counsel for A1 would submit that A1’s counsel would cross-examine PW1 and PW2 on the next date of hearing before the trial Court ie., 15.10.2026 or whenever the witnesses next appear before the trial Court.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor confirms the earlier directions issued by my learned Predecessor and would state that A2 had examined PW1 and PW2.

8. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Considering the fact that the appellants are in custody from 21.08.2025; that the trial has commenced; that they have to effectively defend themselves before the trial Court; and that further incarceration is not required for the purpose of trial, this Court is inclined to release the appellants on bail in the following conditions;

                (i) The appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Special Court for SC/ST Act, Ranipet;

                (ii) The appellants and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity;

                (iii)the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on all hearings;

                (iv)the respondent police is directed to ensure that there is no threat to the life and safety of the de-facto complainant. In the event of any threat, appropriate steps to be taken.

                (v)the appellants shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

                (vi)the appellants shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

                (vii)the appellants shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

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

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

                (x) The first appellant(A1) shall not seek adjournment for cross-examination of both PW1 and PW2 on the next date of hearing or whenever they are produced before the learned Judge, if he intends to cross-examine the witnesses. If A1 adopts any dilatory tactics, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

10. In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 30.04.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.613 of 2026 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Court, Ranipet, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.