CRL A No. 804 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL A No. 804 of 2026 V.Singaravel S/o. Vadivel Thevar, Melakkadu, Karuppambulam, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapattinam District. ..Appellant/Accused Vs 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedaranyam. 2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam. 3. Lalitha Ambethkar Nagar, Melakkadu, Karuppampulam, Vedaraniyam. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2026 on the file of the District and Session Judge, Nagapattinam and enlarge the petitioner on bail. For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Ganesan for Mr.J.Kamaraj https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 804 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 8 For Respondents-1 & 2: Mrs.Sharada Vivek, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent-3 : Mr.R.Ganesh Legal Aid Counsel JUDGMENT The appellant/accused in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2024, who is facing trial for offence under Section 376(2)(1) of I.P.C., 1860 and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) r/w 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, had filed bail application before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, by an order dated 20.05.2026, dismissed the bail application, against which, the present appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was arrested in this case on 22.07.2023, from then on, he is in prison for more than 1080 days. He further submitted that the appellant is a physically challenged person, having 50% disability in his lower limb. According to the F.I.R., on 21.07.2023, at about 12.00 noon, while the appellant was engaged in the “100 days work scheme”, a rat snake found near the work place and the workers went in search of the snake. But it is projected that at that time the appellant forcibly took the victim girl to a casuarina grove and the appellant committed rape on the victim girl. In this case, the complaint filed with a delay. As per the de facto complainant, the mother of the victim, the fact of her daughter raped by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 804 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 8 appellant was informed by one Rajalakshmi and Vanitha, who were also present in the work place, after she enquired them. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant falsely implicated in this case. Since there was a dispute between the appellant and de facto complainant/mother of the victim, taking advantage of her daughter’s mental health, a false case given. Due to his incarceration, the appellant subjected to untold misery and sufferings. He further submitted that the appellant is a senior citizen and there is no one to take care of him. Due to his long incarceration and povery, he was unable to pay his advocate’s fees or give proper instructions for conducting the trial and no cross examination done. Now, the appellant filed a petition to recall PW1 to PW5 for cross-examination and he would cross-examine the witnesses without any delay. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that the appellant may be granted bail to give proper instruction to his counsel and to effectively defend his case. 4. Since the appellant is also facing charges under SC/ST Act, this Court caused notice to the third respondent/victim. The notice was served to the third respondent and she acknowledged the same. Further, she gave a statement to the respondent police that she has strong objection for granting bail to the appellant. Further she feared for her life, if the appellant was released on bail. Since, she has no means to engage an Advocate, requested this Court to appoint a Legal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 804 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 8 Aid Counsel to represent her. Hence, this Court, on 10.07.2026, appointed Mr.R.Ganesh, as Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent. 5. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent strongly opposed for granting bail to the appellant stating that the victim in this case is a mentally challenged person and she was forcibly taken to the casuarina grove and was raped there. Due to her mental condition, she could not disclose the incident immediately. Thereafter she informed her mother about the pain and suffering in her private parts. The de facto complainant thereafter confirmed with the other workers, who employed in the ‘100 days work scheme’, namely, Rajalakshmi and Vanitha, who confirmed victim taken alone by the appellant. Thereafter, complaint lodged on 22.07.2023 and case registered. 6. He further submitted that during investigation, the victim was examined and her statement recorded. The statement of the persons employed on that day, namely, Kunjammal, Rajalakshmi and Vanitha, recorded. Thereafter, the victim produced before the Doctor for medical examination. She was also produced before the Magistrate and her 164 statement confirmed the overt act of the appellant and thereafter on conclusion of investigation, listing 19 witnesses, charge sheet filed. The petitioner so far, not cross-examined even one witness and now filing the bail application citing reason that earlier he filed bail application and the same was dismissed, against which, an appeal in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 804 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 8 Crl.A.No.610 of 2025 filed before this Court and this Court dismissed the same on 13.06.2025 with a direction that the trial to be completed within a period of three months and now the trial not completed, hence filed the present bail petition. The delay is due to the appellant’s own conduct. Taking advantage of the observations made in Crl.A.No.610 of 2025, the appellant filed this second bail application, which cannot be entertained. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed the appellant’s contention and submitted that in this case, so far, 18 witnesses examined and the case reached the final stage at the time of arguments during March, 2026. The appellant filed second bail application in Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2026 and the trial Court dismissed the same on 20.05.2026, against which, the present appeal is filed. The appellant was arrested on 22.07.2023, from then on, he is in prison. The appellant failed to cross-examine the witnesses. In this case, the de facto complainant and the victim were examined on 29.07.2024. The other witnesses, namely, LW3 to LW9 were examined on 27.09.2024 and LW10 examined on 29.07.2024, LW13 and LW15 examined on 25.11.2024, LW12 and LW14 examined on 06.12.2024, LW11 examined on 03.01.2025, LW16 examined on 05.01.2025, LW17 examined 17.06.2025 and the Investigating Officer/LW19 examined on 19.08.2025. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for examination of defence witnesses. After giving sufficient opportunity to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 804 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 8 appellant, the case was posted for arguments during March, 2026. At that stage, the appellant filed a petition to recall PW1 to PW5 and also filed the present bail application. The appellant’s continuous incarceration is due to his own conduct. Despite giving sufficient opportunity, the appellant not cross-examined the witnesses. In this case, majority of the witnesses not cross-examined. Further, if the appellant is granted bail, there is every possibility of his absconding. 8. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the conduct of the appellant in not co-operating with the trial, failed to cross-examine the witnesses despite sufficient opportunity given, now the appellant cannot take advantage of the directions of this Court in Crl.A.No.610 of 2025 for speedy trial. The trial has been stalled due to the conduct of the appellant. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. 9. Since the appellant so far not cross-examined the witnesses and he is facing serious charges, the Trial Court to consider the recall petitions, sympathetically considering the charge and the petitioner’s long incarceration. 10. With the above observations, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 804 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 8 11. This Court appreciates the service rendered by Mr.R.Ganesh, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent in effectively putting forth the case of victim and addressing the grievance of the victim. The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority shall pay the approved remuneration to Mr.R.Ganesh, Legal Aid Counsel. 16-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI To 1. The District and Session Judge, Nagapattinam. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedaranyam. 3. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 804 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 8 M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. RSI CRL A No. 804 of 2026 16-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis