CRL.MP.No.18987 of 2025 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL.MP.No.18987 of 2025 in CRL.A.No.1568 of 2025 Vinayagam ..Petitioner Vs The State by the Inspector of Police Hudco Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.542/2017) ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS praying to suspend the sentence imposed in the judgement dated 09.09.2025 made in S.C.No.42 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hosur and enlarge the petitioner on bail. For Petitioner: Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondent: Mr.C.R.Malarvannan Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP.No.18987 of 2025 __________ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth, J.) The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.542 of 2017. He has sought suspension of the sentence imposed under judgment dated 09.09.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hosur. The petitioner has been found guilty and convicted for offences under Section 302 on 2 counts and 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on 2 counts, together with fines for the murder of Amresh and Suresh Reddy. 2. We have heard Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned Government Counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as a driver in a school. The two deceased individuals, who were employed as drivers in other schools, wanted to employ one Murugesh, who had been examined as P.W.4, as a driver in the school where the petitioner was employed. Since this was resisted by the petitioner, enmity flared up. 4. On 28.10.2017, the petitioner, P.W.4 and P.W.10 were discussing the possibility of employment of P.W.4 and when the petitioner had conveyed that he would not be willing to accommodate P.W.4 as a driver in the school where he was working, a quarrel broke out and P.W.4 slapped the petitioner. The two https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP.No.18987 of 2025 __________ deceased along with P.W.4 then called the petitioner to meet them for further discussion, which he refused. 5. Thereafter, the deceased along with P.W.4 and P.W.10 went to the petitioner’s house and on seeing them, the accused attacked them with a machu knife, proceeding to cut both the deceased on the left side of their necks causing their death. While Amresh died on the spot, Suresh Reddy was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Hence, the prosecution would aver that the petitioner was singularly responsible for the demise of the deceased. 6. For his part, the petitioner would submit that the deposition of the eye witnesses are not credible and in any event, they were all interested parties as they were well known to each other. Over and above all, learned counsel would plead that the petitioner had been in incarceration since almost a year and hence, there was no justification in him continuing there. 7. We have been through the deposition of P.W.10, who has categorically spoken to the manner by which the petitioner had attacked and murdered the deceased. In fact, P.W.10 had himself sustained injuries in the attack and he too had been cut on the left side of the face using the same weapon used to murder the deceased. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP.No.18987 of 2025 __________ 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the evidence of P.W.10, who has withstood cross examination as well. P.W.1 had also been present at the time of the attack and his testimony also supports the prosecution’s case. 9. In light of the overt act being, prima facie, attributed to the petitioner by both P.W.1 and P.W.10, whose testimonies corroborate the version of the prosecution, we are disinclined to consider the question of suspension of sentence now and dismiss this petition. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek early disposal of the criminal appeal, if it is not taken up in the next six months. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 21-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No hvk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP.No.18987 of 2025 __________ To 1.The Inspector of Police Hudco Police Station, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.MP.No.18987 of 2025 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. hvk CRL.MP.No.18987 of 2025 in CRL.A.No.1568 of 2025 21-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis