CRL MP(MD) Nos.9156, 6283 and 5604of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22-06-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.9156, 6283 and 5604 of 2026 in Crl.A(MD) Nos.427, 360 and 321 of 2026 Sabarikiri Petitioner in Crl.M.P(MD) No.9156 of 2026 Anbarasan Petitioner in Crl.M.P(MD) No.6283 of 2026 Murugesan @ Style Murugan Petitioner in Crl.M.P(MD) No.5604 of 2026 Vs State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.285 of 2021. Respondent in all the petitions For Petitioners: Mr.S.Vairamuthu For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side)+ Common Prayer: To Suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in S.C.No.207 of 2021 by the judgment dated 20.02.2026 and enlarge the petitioners on bail pending disposal of the appeal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble N.Anand Venkatesh J.) These petitions have been filed seeking suspension of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, in S.C.No.207 of 2021, by judgment dated 20.02.2026, and to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 had a love affair with the daughter of one Ganesan, who is a friend of the deceased, Murugesan. The deceased is said to have reprimanded A1 for his conduct. In view of the same, there was previous enmity and on 11.04.2021 at about 8.00 PM, the accused persons, numbering nine, are said to have unlawfully assembled and attacked the deceased with deadly weapons, which resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased. Based on the same, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.285 of 2021. There are a total of nine accused persons in this case and the petitioners are A7, A8, and A9 respectively. A1 is said to have died during the pendency of the trial and hence, the charges against him abated. 3. The Trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioners in the following manner: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Provision under which convicted Sentence Sec.302 r/w. 149 of IPC Life Imprisonment Section 148 of IPC Two years Rigorous Imprisonment Section 342 of IPC One year Rigorous Imprisonment 4. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggreived by the same, the appeal has been filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 6. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioners is that PW1, who is the son-in-law of the deceased, is the only eyewitness examined on the side of the prosecution and as per his evidence, specific overt acts have been attributed to A1 to A5, whereas, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they had only threatened the deceased with a beer bottle. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a wide discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side), appearing on behalf of the respondent, based on the counter affidavit filed, submitted that the evidence of PW1 clearly explains the manner in which the entire incident took place and even if no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, they formed part of the unlawful assembly and therefore, they have been roped in under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. In view of the same, it is contended that the Court below has properly appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion. The learned counsel, on instructions, submitted that there are no previous cases https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis against the petitioners. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the grounds that have been raised on the side of the appellants and also taking note of the overt acts attributed to the petitioners and considering the fact that there are no previous cases against the petitioners and that there are arguable points which have to be decided on merits and also considering the fact that the petitioners have been undergoing incarceration since February 2026, this Court is inclined to grant suspension of sentence by suspending the sentence imposed on the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. ii. 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 passbook to ensure their identity. iii. The petitioners shall appear and sign before the trial Court at 10.30 a.m., on the first working day of every English calender month, till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal. (N.ANAND VENKATESH J.) (K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN J.) 22-06-2026 Indu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. 2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis