Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Appeal No.1057 of 2022
Ashokan ... Appellant
..vs..
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Vadakkipalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by Inspector of Police,
Vadakkipalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District,
Crime No.133 of 2022.
3.Ramkumar ... Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act) to set aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No.4061 of 2022 dated 29.08.2022
dismissing the bail petition and release the appellant on bail in Crime
No.133 of 2022.
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.Deepan Uday
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 & R2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 29.8.2022 passed in C.M.P.No.4061 of 2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and also perused the materials available on record.
3. Based on the complaint given by third respondent/de-facto complainant, the respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.133 of 2022 against the appellant herein/A1 and six others for the offences under Section 120(B), 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w Page No.2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022 Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 and the appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.8.2022. The appellant/A1 has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.4061 of 2022 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore seeking bail and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the appellant/A1 and other accused entered into the place where the de-facto complainant and other victims are residing and indiscriminately attacked them with wooden logs and also abused them by using their caste name.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 submitted that the appellant and the de-facto complainant are from same community, therefore, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 would not attract. Due to previous enmity, the de-facto complainant has foisted a false complaint against the appellant. The prosecution has not properly Page No.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022 investigated the case and arrested and remanded the appellant. The trial Court has failed to consider that both the appellant and the third respondent are from same community and dismissed the petition.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that due to previous enmity the appellant and others attacked the de-facto complainant. Further some of the accused are still absconding and investigation is still pending. In such circumstances, if the appellant is released on bail, the occurrence will further escalate and hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Admittedly, totally seven accused are involved in the alleged offences and the appellant herein is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.133 of 2022 on the file of the respondent/Police and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2022 for the offences under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and Section Page No.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
8.The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that both the appellant/A1 and the de-facto complainant are from same community and hence, SC/ST Act would not attract. Due to previous enmity, a false case has been foisted against the appellant and others. The further contention is that the de-facto complainant is also involved in criminal cases under the POCSO Act cases. Therefore, the appellant has to be enlarged on bail.
9. On a perusal of the entire materials, it would reveal that the appellant has not furnished any document to show that the appellant and de-facto complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. Though the appellant is in custody from 15.08.2022, if at all he belonged to the said community, he should have submitted the Community Certificate either before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court. Page No.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
10.Considering the serious nature of the offences and also considering the fact that several accused are involved in the alleged offences and that the investigation is in a preliminary stage and charge sheet has not yet been filed and hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
11. In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
09.09.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ms Page No.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022 To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadakkipalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Vadakkipalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District, Page No.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022 09.09.2022 Page No.8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis