(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14 A (2) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act Cases, Pudukkottai, in Cr.M.P.No.216 of 2025 and the same was dismissed on 17.10.2025 and set aside the same.)

1. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the order made in Cr.M.P.No.216 of 2025, dated 17.10.2025 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (PoA)Act Cases, Pudukkottai, dismissing the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS.

2. The appellant is the ninth accused accused in Crime No.96 of 2025 on the file of the Avudaiyarkovil Police Station, Pudukkottai District, for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(2), 351(3) of BNS r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act 2015.

3. The case of the prosecution is that there existed prolonged enmity between the defacto complainant family and one Kalidass @ Koolu; that six months prior to the occurrence, one Suryaprabhu distant relative of the defacto complainant died in a road accident and the two wheeler of the Suryaprabhu was sold to the friend of the first accused, but the sale price was not entirely paid and that the defacto complainant's husband Kannan compelled the first accused to pay the sale price that leads to a wordy altercation between the deceased and the first accused and at that time, the first accused and his friends criminally intimidated the deceased. Pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused including the appellants herein, on 24.07.2025 at about 09.45 pm., accused 1 to 8 allegedly attacked the deceased Kannan and his cousin Karthick with deadly weapons and brutally killed them and that the other accused, including the appellants allegedly assisted the prime accused in various ways.

4. According to the prosecution, on the basis of the confession alleged to have been taken from the first accused, the present appellant and the other accused were added and the present appellant alone had refused to pay the money for the two-wheeler and is the root cause for the entire case and he had taken part in the conspiracy and also assisted the other accused in the commission of offence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on the basis of the confession statement made by the first accused, the appellant was falsely implicated as ninth accused; that the petitioner is in no way connected with the accused 1 to 8 and never involved in the alleged occurrence; that there is no prima facie case made out against the appellant in respect of the offences referred; that the appellant is an innocent and has not committed any offence and that he has been falsely implicated in the above case.

6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent, after completing the investigation, laid the final report and the case was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.32 of 2025 and the same is pending on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Pudukkottai.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit the first respondent has completed the investigation and filed the final report and the case was taken on file and that therefore, the question of hampering the investigation by the appellant does not arise. He would further submit that the appellant was arrested on 08.09.2025 and he is in judicial custody; that the appellant moved an application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS before the Special Court, but the learned Special Judge, without considering the reasons canvassed, dismissed the petition, vide order, dated 17.10.2025 and that therefore, the appellant was constrained to prefer the present appeal challenging the bail dismissal order.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that the appellant along with other accused had taken part in the conspiracy to kill the deceased; that the appellant is the root cause for the entire occurrence as he alone refused to pay the amount for the bike and that is why, there arose disputes between two gangs; that the first accused in his voluntary confession statement has clearly implicated the appellant, disclosing his involvement in the commission of offence and on that basis, he was added an accused; that the appellant before and after the occurrence assisted the other accused in various ways and that he alone had given six Aruvals to the other accused and he was standing at a distance of 100 meters from the alleged occurrence spot.

9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would further submit that though the charge sheet has already been filed and the case was taken on file, if the appellant is released on bail, he will abscond and there is every possibility of threatening and tampering the witnesses and that since it is a double murder case and considering the role played by the appellant, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this point of time.

10. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), just because the charge sheet was laid, that by itself is not a ground sufficient enough to grant the bail in a double murder case.

11. Considering the above facts, circumstances and the gravity of the charges levelled and taking note of the role played by the appellant and also the period of incarceration, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at this point of time. Consequently, this Court concludes that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.