Bail granted Thiru.S.Karthikeyan, M.A., M.L., M.Sc., PGDCFSc., PGDDF, Principal Sessions Judge. Monday, the 13th day of October, 2025. Crl.M.P.No.9716/2025 in S.C.No.425/2024 in K-1, Sembium P.S. Crime No.293/2024 Siva @ Shiva .. Petitioner/Accused

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI
Present: Thiru.S.Karthikeyan, M.A., M.L., M.Sc., PGDCFSc., PGDDF, Principal Sessions Judge.
Monday, the 13th day of October, 2025.
Crl.M.P.No.9716/2025 in
S.C.No.425/2024 in
K-1, Sembium P.S. Crime No.293/2024
Siva @ Shiva .. Petitioner/Accused No.21
Vs.
1) The State Rep. by
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Koyambedu Police Range, Greater Chennai Police.
2) The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Egmore, Chennai-600008.
3) The Inspector of Police,
K-1, Sembium Police Station, Chennai-600082. .. Respondents / Complainants.
This petition is coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of M/s.P.Sivagurunathan, T.Udayakumar, M.Riyasudeen, D.Christoper, R.Maduraiveeran, S.Dineshkumar, A.Manikandan, K.Dhilip and Umesh, the Counsel for the petitioner and of the Special Public Prosecutor for respondent police and upon hearing both sides, this Court delivered the following,
ORDER
1. Petition for bail.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as A21 and facing trial before this court for theoffences punishable u/s 61(2), (a) r/w 103(1), 191(3), 351(3), 109, 238 r/w 190 and 49 of BNS and u/s 4(b) r/w 5, 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and u/s 3 r/w 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.07.2024.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 05.07.2024 atabout 07.00 hours, the State President of Bahujan Samaj Party Mr.Armstrong was murdered. Along with him, one Balaji was attacked and he suffered serious injuries.
In this connection, the petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2024 based on the confession of co-accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein, who is a close associate of Krishnakumar alias Mottai Krishan (A18) and he was handed over Rs.9.50 lakhs and 2 knives so as to handover the same to other coaccused for committing the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unnecessarily roped in the above crime. He has no bad antecedents. Though he was arrested under the Preventive Detention Laws and detained, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras has set aside the detention order passed by the Competent Authority. The petitioner has no chance of abscondence. He is ready to co-operate for trial. Hence, he prays for bail.
4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecutionsubmitted that the petitioner is one of the accused in the murder of State President of the Bahujan Samaj Party Mr.Armstrong. As per the prosecution, there are more than one motive for the said crime. Arcot Suresh, a known rowdy element, was murdered. In this connection, it is believed that Mr.Armstrong was behind the said murder. Therefore, in order to take revenge, the petitioner conspired with other coaccused to cause the death of the deceased Armstrong. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the co-accused have brutally murdered Mr.Armstrong on 05.07.2024 and they also caused injury to one Balaji. The said murder created a huge sensation since the deceased is the State President of Bahujan Samaj Party. The accused in this case were detained under Preventive Detention Laws. Though the said detention order was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras in a Batch of Habeas Corpus Petitions, the Hon’ble High Court has made it clear that mere setting aside the order of detention does not warrant granting of bail. While granting bail, the court has to consider various parameters, including the gravity of offence and safety of the accused, who are released on bail. In this case, there is a life threat for the petitioner also. If the petitioner is released on bail, a retaliation attack may be made. Further, the petitioner may abscond and may not subject himself to the process of court. In this case, the charges were not yet framed. Some of the coaccused, including the petitioner herein had filed discharge petition and the same is pending consideration. Therefore, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor strongly objected to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. This court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissionsput forth by either side. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein, who is a close associate of Krishnakumar alias Mottai Krishnan (A18) and that Krishnakumar alias Mottai Krishnan had told the petitioner that A2 had made a plan to murder Armstrong and Krishnakumar had handed over Rs.9.50 lakhs and 2
knives similar to the one used in the murder, which he had kept in his Mahindra XUV Car bearing Registration No.TN-03/AS-0009 on 15.04.2024 at 14.30 hours near the Madras High Court for being used in the murder of Armstrong and the petitioner had received the same and taken it to his house and kept the same concealed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this courtthat after the dismissal of the earlier bail, the Hon’ble High Court was inclined to quash the Charge Sheet filed by the respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.18671/2025 and directed investigation by C.B.I. The Hon’ble Apex Court was also declined to grant stay for change of investigation. In view of the above position, the trial would get a delay and it is the duty of the State to provide safeguard to every citizen, including the petitioner herein as he has also a citizen of this country. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. Even as per the allegations, he accompanied A18, but A18 has not given any confession implicating the petitioner herein since he was not arrested. Similarly placed Advocate Mr.Chandrasekaran was not charged. Prolonged incarceration would defeat justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balwinder Singh -vsState of Punjab and another and Tapas Kumar Palti -vs- State of Chhattisgarh. Hence, prays for bail.
7. The learned Senior Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentpolice submitted that it is true that the Hon’ble High Court has quashed the charge sheet filed by the respondent police and directed investigation by C.B.I. However, aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.No.15897/2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically granted stay of quashing the Charge Sheet. Had the intention of the Hon’ble Apex Court to give the accused benefit of bail, there is no reason for granting stay. The situation is now so nebulous. It is the specific stand of the State that until the pendency of S.L.P., it will not handover the records to C.B.I. for investigation as it would infructuate their appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, he strongly objected to grant bail.
8. After the dismissal of the earlier bail, the Hon’ble High Court, Madras inCrl.O.P.No.18671/2025 has quashed the Charge Sheet filed by the respondent police. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred S.L.P. and the Hon’ble Apex Court has stayed the quashment of Charge Sheet, however, made it clear that the order of transfer of investigation shall remain in force. Therefore, an uncertainty prevails as to whether the petitioner also would be charged by the C.B.I. in their investigation. The overtact alleged as against the petitioner is that he has accompanied A18 and received a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- and two knives from A18. But, it is not the case of the prosecution that the said money and knives were used for commission of crime. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and he was implicated in this case based on the statement of one Mr.Chandrasekaran, who also similarly placed, however, he was not charged. The petitioner is in incarceration since 446 days. By keeping him in custody would not serve justice if he is not charged by the C.B.I. or subsequently, acquitted by this court. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on conditions.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of this court and on further condition that
(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb impression inthe surety bond and produce copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity.
(b) the petitioner shall appear before this court on all working days at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.
(c) the petitioner shall co-operate for the investigation by the C.B.I.
(d) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial.
(e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
(f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, appropriate action wil betaken against the petitioner in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].
(g) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
Dictated to Steno-typist, typed by him directly, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 13th day of October, 2025.
Principal Sessions Judge Copy to :
1. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. ss
Crl.M.P.No.9716/2025