PALANISAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11/2/2026, seeks bail in S.C.No.24 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, for the offence punishable under Sec. 294(b) of IPC, 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, in connection with Crime No.185 of 2024, registered on the file of the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an accused facing trial in S.C.No.24 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Tiruppur. He further submitted that, at the time when the case was called, the petitioner was not feeling well and was waiting outside the Court, without hearing that the case had been called again. Unfortunately, the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court. After the lunch break, the case was called once again. Later on the same day, the petitioner was represented through his counsel; however, the trial Court had already issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against him on 5/2/2026. The petitioner thereafter filed an advance hearing petition along with a surrender petition and a warrant recall petition on 11/2/2026. On the same day, the said petitions were dismissed and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 11/2/2026. He further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear regularly before the trial Court on all hearing dates hereafter and is prepared to comply with any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the trial Court is recorded the proceedings on 5/2/2026 and the case was posted for examination of witnesses. At the time when the case was called, the petitioner was absent and thereby stalled the trial proceedings. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond again, which would prejudice the prosectuion in conducting the trial. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.