Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7228 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 April, 2022
Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
M.Selvam ... Appellant/A20
vs.
1.The State
rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Polur Sub Division,
Kadaladi Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2.The State
rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Kadaladi Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.38 of 2022)
3.N.Muthuraman ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Amendment Act,
2018, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.229 of 2022 dated
15.03.2022 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
1989, Thiruvannamalai and consequently enlarge the appellant on bail in
respect of Crime No.38 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.
For Appellant : Mr.S.B.Viswanathan
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondent-3 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 15.03.2022 made in
Crl.M.P.No.229 of 2022, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial
of cases under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, Thiruvannamalai, the appellant/A20 in Crime No.38
of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, has preferred this appeal
praying to set aside the order dated 15.03.2022 and to enlarge him on bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.01.2022, due to the
dispute over carrying the dead bodies of persons who belongs to
Arunthathiar Community through the High road, the appellant and other
accused, who belong to the Vanniyar community, had entered into the area,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
wherein, the defacto complainant and others were residing and caused
damage to the vehicles, windows and doors. For the said incident, the
respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 147, 148, 324, 307 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)(za)(A), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act 2016 and Section 3(1) of
TNPPDL Act, 1992. Afterwards, the appellant was secured on 05.03.2022
and remanded to judicial custody. The earlier bail application filed before
the Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai
was dismissed by an order dated 15.03.2022. Challenging the impugned
order dated 15.03.2022, the appellant is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant is an innocent person and no way connected with the occurrence
as alleged by the prosecution. As of now, the investigation in this case has
been completed and the appellant is the only bread winner of his respective
family. It is the further submission that the appellant is ready to abide any
conditions imposed by this Court and accordingly, he prayed to set aside the
impugned order dated 15.03.2022 and to enlarge the appellant on bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
the respondent/Police raised objection stating that some of the accused, who
committed the alleged occurrence, were absconded and as of now, the
investigation has not been completed. However, he admits that the alleged
occurrence had happened due to the emotional feelings of the villagers.
5. Though notice was served to the defacto complainant, none
appeared on behalf of him.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
either side are considered.
7. The averments found in the First Information Report shows
that during the relevant point of time, the appellant and other accused, who
belong to the same village, in an emotional mood, joined together and
obstructed the people, who belong to the community of the defacto
complainant and attempted to restrain them from carrying the dead body.
Therefore, in the said circumstances, whether the appellant is having the
intention to abuse the defacto complainant and others, is a matter for trial. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
other words, considering the period of incarceration, further custody of the
appellants is not necessary for completing the investigation. As of now, the
appellant is in incarceration from 05.03.2022 onwards. Further after
registering the case, no such events had happened in the occurrence place.
8. Hence, taking note of all the above said aspects into
consideration, and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the
appellant and also by considering the period of incarceration, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the appellant subject to certain conditions.
9. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail
subject to the following conditions;
(a) the appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, Thiruvannamalai.
(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
(c) The appellant shall appear before the Srivilliputhur Town Police Station, daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. Further, the appellant should not enter into the occurrence place without the permission of this Court.
(d) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
In the result, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
Thiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.No.229 of 2022 dated 15.03.2022 is set aside
and the Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.
06.04.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok Note: Issue order copy on .04.2022
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Polur Sub Division, Kadaladi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
lok
3.The Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.A.No.347 of 2022
06.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!