Madras High Court
Silambarasan vs The State Rep. By on 4 April, 2022
Crl.A.Nos.163 & 169 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.Nos.163 & 169 of 2022
Silambarasan ...Appellant in
Crl.A.No.163/2022
Jayakumar @ Thandi Jayakumar ...Appellant in
Crl.A.No.169/2022
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Salem, Salem District.
2.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem District.
(Crime No.1182 of 2020)
3.C.Jansirani ... Respondents in
both Appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 14(A) (2)
of the SC/ST Act, 1989, to set aside the order made in C.M.P.Nos.4328
& 4327 of 2021 dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge of Salem and to enlarge the petitioner on bail
by allowing the Appeals throughout.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.163 & 169 of 2022
For Appellant
in both Appeals : Mr.B.Mohan
For Respondents
in both Appeals
For R1 & R2 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
For R3 : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
COMMON JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 23.11.2021 made in
Crl.M.P.Nos.4328 & 4237 of 2021 respectively, the appellants, who were
arrayed as Accused Nos.1 & 7 respectively, in Crime No.1182 of 2020
on the file of the Kitchipalayam Police Station, have preferred these
appeals and praying to enlarge them on bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's
husband Selladurai is a rowdy element and there was an enmity between
the defacto complainant's husband's group and the accused
Suriyamoorthy group. Due to previous enmity, on 22.12.2020 at about
7.30 p.m. when the defacto complainant's husband was proceeding along
with the defacto complainant and one Valarmathi in his car on Appar
Street, the appellants and other accused came with veecharuval in cars
and two wheelers and waylaid the defacto complainant's car and attacked
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.163 & 169 of 2022
the defacto complainant's husband with veecharuval and the defacto
complainant's husband was brought to the hospital, where the Doctor
declared him as dead. Hence, a case was registered against the appellants
under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 & 427 of I.P.C. r/w. Section 3 of
TNPPDL Act and altered to Section 427, 177, 419 r/w 34, 120(b), 147,
148, 149, 341 & 302 I.P.C. r/w. Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and Section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
appellants are innocent persons and no way connected with the offence
as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the
respondent police has now completed the investigation and filed a final
report. According to him, the appellants are in the Judicial Custody from
31.12.2021 onwards. Hence, he prays for bail by allowing these appeals.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
the respondent/Police raised objection stating that while at the time of
occurrence, the appellants joined with other accused and after made
conspiracy, committed the offence of murder. Further, he submits that the
appellants were liable to be convicted under the provisions of SC/ST Act.
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.163 & 169 of 2022
According to him the appellant in Crl.A.No.163 of 2022 is having six
previous cases wherein, three cases were registered for the offences
punishable under Section 307 of IPC against him along with other
offences. Further the appellant in Crl.A.No.169 of 2022 is having seven
previous cases, wherein two cases were registered for the offences under
Section 307 of IPC. However, he admits that as of now, the investigation
in this case has been completed and final report has also been filed before
the trial Court.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
either side are considered.
6. Though the offences committed by the appellants are
heinous in nature, being the reason that the investigation has been
completed in this case, the question of further police custody is not
necessary. However, on considering the particulars submitted by the
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police, it
seems that from the year 2015 onwards, both the appellants herein have
committed the offences continuously till 2020. The number of previous
cases pending against the appellants would clearly show that they are
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.163 & 169 of 2022
habitual offenders. If these type of accused are released on bail, they try
to tamper the witnesses and therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow
these Criminal Appeals.
7. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeal are dismissed.
04.04.2022
(3/3)
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rts
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Salem.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Salem, Salem District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem City.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.163 & 169 of 2022
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
rts
Crl.A.Nos.163 & 169 of 2022
04.04.2022
(3/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
