CRL MP(MD) NO. 12864 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA Crl.M.P(MD) No.12864 of 2026 in Crl.A(MD) No.646 of 2026 Jayalalitha Petitioner Vs State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station Karur District. (Crime No. 82/2018) Respondent For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Gokulraj For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Christopher Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Prayer: C-60. To suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed in S.C.No. 19/2022 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Karur, vide judgment dt.20.04.2026 and enlarge the petitioner /Appellant on bail, pending disposal of the above said Criminal Appeal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble A.D.Jagadish Chandira J.) This petition has been filed seeking suspension of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the District and Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No.19 of 2022, dated 20.04.2026 and to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A4 is the wife of the deceased Subburaj and the petitioner (A5) is the mother of A4. It is alleged that A4 developed an illicit relationship with A1 and due to the said relationship, A4 and the petitioner (A5) instigated A1 to eliminate the deceased. In furtherance of the conspiracy, A1 to A5 hatched a plan to murder Subburaj. On 09.02.2018, A1 lured the deceased to Karur. Thereafter, A1 to A3 kidnapped him in a Maruti Omni van, took him to an isolated place and brutally attacked him with aruvals, thereby causing his death. A4 and the petitioner (A5) were co-conspirators who abetted the murder by inducing A1 to commit the said offence. Hence, the case. 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 has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the following manner: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Provision under which Sentence convicted Sec 120(b) IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in the event of remission, in default to undergo four years Simple Imprisonment. Sec. 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in the event of remission, in default to undergo four years Simple Imprisonment.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and that she has no active role in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 2018, whereas the case was further investigated by the respondents only on the basis of the alleged confession of A1 recorded during the year 2021. He would further submit that P.W.4, who was examined to establish the last seen theory, has turned hostile and has hence not supported the case of the prosecution. According to the petitioner, every link in the chain of circumstances has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and therefore, the Trial Court has without properly appreciating the same, erroneously convicted the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has filed a counter affidavit setting out the facts of the prosecution's case and relying on the same, he stated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. 6. Taking note of the submissions made on either side and the materials placed on record and further considering that there are several arguable points and moreso https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

considering that the appeal is of the year 2026 and thereby the likelihood of the appeal being taken up for final hearing in the near future also not being probable, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner herein is suspended, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karur. 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 petitioner shall appear and sign before the trial Court on the first working day of every English calender month at 5.30 a.m., till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal. (A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.) (R.POORNIMA J.) 16-07-2026 Indu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station Karur District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL MP(MD) NO. 12864 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16-07-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA Crl.M.P(MD) No.12864 of 2026 in Crl.A(MD) No.646 of 2026 Jayalalitha Petitioner Vs State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station Karur District. (Crime No. 82/2018) Respondent For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Gokulraj For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Christopher Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Prayer: C-60. To suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed in S.C.No. 19/2022 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Karur, vide judgment dt.20.04.2026 and enlarge the petitioner /Appellant on bail, pending disposal of the above said Criminal Appeal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble A.D.Jagadish Chandira J.) This petition has been filed seeking suspension of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the District and Sessions Judge, Karur in S.C.No.19 of 2022, dated 20.04.2026 and to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A4 is the wife of the deceased Subburaj and the petitioner (A5) is the mother of A4. It is alleged that A4 developed an illicit relationship with A1 and due to the said relationship, A4 and the petitioner (A5) instigated A1 to eliminate the deceased. In furtherance of the conspiracy, A1 to A5 hatched a plan to murder Subburaj. On 09.02.2018, A1 lured the deceased to Karur. Thereafter, A1 to A3 kidnapped him in a Maruti Omni van, took him to an isolated place and brutally attacked him with aruvals, thereby causing his death. A4 and the petitioner (A5) were co-conspirators who abetted the murder by inducing A1 to commit the said offence. Hence, the case. 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 has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the following manner: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Provision under which Sentence convicted Sec 120(b) IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in the event of remission, in default to undergo four years Simple Imprisonment. Sec. 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in the event of remission, in default to undergo four years Simple Imprisonment.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and that she has no active role in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 2018, whereas the case was further investigated by the respondents only on the basis of the alleged confession of A1 recorded during the year 2021. He would further submit that P.W.4, who was examined to establish the last seen theory, has turned hostile and has hence not supported the case of the prosecution. According to the petitioner, every link in the chain of circumstances has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and therefore, the Trial Court has without properly appreciating the same, erroneously convicted the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has filed a counter affidavit setting out the facts of the prosecution's case and relying on the same, he stated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. 6. Taking note of the submissions made on either side and the materials placed on record and further considering that there are several arguable points and moreso https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

considering that the appeal is of the year 2026 and thereby the likelihood of the appeal being taken up for final hearing in the near future also not being probable, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner herein is suspended, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karur. 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 petitioner shall appear and sign before the trial Court on the first working day of every English calender month at 5.30 a.m., till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal. (A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.) (R.POORNIMA J.) 16-07-2026 Indu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1.The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station Karur District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis