Prakash vs Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others

The appellant/A8 is facing trial under the provisions of SC/ST Act before the Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act cases, Pudukkottai, in Spl.S.C.No.32 of 2025. He was prosecuted along with other accused for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(2), 351(3) of BNS r/w. Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.07.2025. The earlier bail application moved by the appellant along with another accused before the Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act Cases, Pudukkottai, in Cr.M.P.No.209 of 2025 was rejected, by order dated 15.10.2025. The earlier criminal appeal filed by the appellant along with another accused in Crl.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2025 was also dismissed by this Court, by Judgment dated 14.11.2025. Thereafter, the appellant has moved another bail petition before the Special Court in Cr.M.P.No.90 of 2026 and the same was dismissed by order dated 27.03.2026. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this criminal appeal seeking bail.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail for the past one year. He further submits that in this case, the investigation was completed, final report has been filed and trial has also commenced. Since the appellant is in jail for the past one year, he is not in a position to engage a counsel to defend his case. Therefore, the appellant may be released on bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that this is a case of double murder. In this case, totally, there are 14 accused and pending trial, one accused died. Considering the nature of offence and the role played by this appellant, this Court has rejected the earlier bail application filed by the appellant along with another accused in Crl.A.(MD)No.1176 of 2026, by Judgment dated 14.11.2025. In this case, out of 40 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined so far. All the accused persons have not chosen to cross examine the witnesses examined by the prosecution till date. In the event, if this appellant is released on bail, there is a possibility of tampering with the witnesses. He further submits that apart from this case, the appellant is having ten previous cases to his credit. Therefore, he opposed for grant of bail to the appellant.

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

Considering the conduct of the accused before the trial Court that they have not chosen to cross examine the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution till date, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. However, the appellant is at liberty to renew the application after cross examining the witnesses produced by the prosecution.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant is in jail, he is not in a position to engage a counsel and defend the case properly.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial Court is directed to engage an experienced counsel in criminal law and conversant with the proceedings of the trial Court, to defend the case of the appellant during trial. In the event the appellant co-operates with the trial proceedings, the trial Court shall consider any bail application that may be filed by him. The trial Court shall also ensure that the appellant is afforded adequate opportunity to consult and have discussions with the counsel engaged on his behalf by the Court.

The Appeal is dismissed in the above terms.