(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended by Act 1 of 2016, to call for the records relating to the order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.53 of 2026 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge, Special Court (FAC) for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukkottai and set aside the said order and enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with the case in Crime No.96 of 2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent.)

1. The appellant, who is the accused No.13, was arrested on 09.09.2025, in connection with the case in Crime No.96 of 2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police, registered for the offence under Sections 119(2), 191(3), 103(2), 351(3) of BNS r/w. Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(b)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, he moved a bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.217 of 2025 before the learned Special Sessions Judge, Special Court (FAC) for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukottai and the same was dismissed by the Court on 17.10.2025. Challenging the same, the appellant had earlier moved an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.1189 of 2025 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 21.11.2025. Now, the appellant has moved this appeal on the ground that he is in jail for the past 197 days and now, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed before the concerned Court and therefore, he seeks bail.

2. The appellant/accused No.13 has been implicated through the confession statement of the 1st accused that he watched the movement of the deceased and informed the same to the 1st accused, so that, the 1st accused along with other accused had committed murder of the deceased. In this case, two persons, namely, one Kannan, who is the husband of the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and his brother Karthi, were done to death. There was a motive between the 1st accused and the deceased Kannan that the 1st accused attempted to marry the defacto complainant. They had also subsequent motive. Therefore, on 24.07.2025, the 1st accused along with 12 others is said to have murdered the deceased persons. The petitioner/13th accused is said to have watched the movement of the deceased and informed the same to the 1st accused. Hence, the case.

3. This Court, by its earlier order dated 25.03.2026, ordered notice to the 3rd respondent. Though notice has been served on the 3rd respondent, there is no representation for the 3rd respondent.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that apart from informing the 1st accused about the movement of the deceased, the appellant also guarded the place of occurrence and dropped the coaccused to the place of occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has also moved another application before the Court of Sessions and the same is listed before the Principal Sessions Court, Pudukkottai in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2026.

5. The appellant has moved this appeal on 09.03.2026. This Court, by its earlier order dated 25.03.2026, ordered notice to the defacto complainant and notice has also been served on the defacto complainant. In the meantime, it appears that the appellant has moved another bail application before the Court of Sessions.

6. Though this Court is not approving the conduct of the appellant in approaching the Sessions Court, when this application is pending before this Court, this Court is convinced with the reply offered by the appellant that his relatives without his knowledge have arranged another counsel and also filed a bail application before the Sessions Court.

7. It appears that the overt act attributed as against the appellant is that he has informed the 1st accused about the movement of the victim and said to have dropped to the co-accused to the place of occurrence. This overt act is also attributed through the confession statement of the 1st accused. Now, the investigation has been completed and the final report has been filed and the charge sheet has also been taken on file.

8. Considering the overt act attributed as against the appellant, his period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant with certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.53 of 2026 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge, Special Court (FAC) for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukkottai, is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:-

                     i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukkottai.

                     ii) The appellant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address.

                     iii)The appellant shall stay at Madurai and report before the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

                     iv) On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellant, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the bail.

10. Considering the conduct of the appellant or his relatives in filing the bail application before the Principal Sessions Court pending this appeal, this Court is inclined to impose the cost of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant. The appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the credit of Indian Bank savings Account No.6514082295, operated by the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench Madras High Court, Madurai, for the purpose of removal of Karuvelam Trees, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After making payment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.