Vijay @ Vijay Adhiraj vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7324 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7324 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Vijay @ Vijay Adhiraj vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 7 April, 2022

                                                                                  Crl.A.No.334 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 07.04.2022

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

                                               Crl.A.No.334 of 2022

                    1. Vijay @ Vijay Adhiraj
                    2. Radha                                                  ...Appellants

                                                       Vs.

                    1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                       Ammepet Range,
                       Salem City.

                    2. The State rep. by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       All Women Police Station,
                       Ammapet, Salem District.
                       (Crime No.6 of 2022)

                    3. Janani                                                 ... Respondents

                    PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A) (2) of the SC/ST
                    Act, 1989, to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.756 of 2022 on the
                    file of the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases-cum Principal
                    Session Judge, Salem, dated 23.02.2022 in Crime No.6 of 2022 on the
                    file of the first respondent by allowing the present appeal and enlarge the
                    appellants on bail.




                    Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.A.No.334 of 2022


                                  For Appellant     : Mr.B.Kumarasamy

                                  For Respondents
                                   For R1 & R2    : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
                                                    Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

                                        For R3      : No appearance

                                                   JUDGMENT

Being dissatisfied with the order dated 23.02.2022 made in

Crl.M.P.No.756 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judge for

SC/ST Act cases-cum Principal Session Judge, Salem, the appellants,

who are arrayed as Accused 1 & 2 in Crime No.6 of 2022 on the file of

the All Women Police Station, Ammapet, Salem, have preferred this

appeal and praying to enlarge them on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second appellant is

the mother of the first appellant and the defacto complainant is the wife

of the first appellant. Previous to the occurrence, both the first appellant

and the defacto complainant were working in Amazon Company,

wherein they developed love and as a result of which the first appellant

got married the defacto complainant on 30.04.2021. After solemnizing

the marriage, both the appellants and the defacto complainant were lived

in a single roof, wherein the appellants abused the defacto complainant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.334 of 2022

by using her caste name and also threatened her that they would kill her.

Hence the case.

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 present

case has been registered for the family dispute and therefore, question of

custodial interrogation does not arise for completing the investigation.

He would submit that the appellants are ready to abide any condition.

Further more, the appellants are in the Judicial Custody from 10.02.2022

onwards. Hence, he prays for bail by allowing this appeal.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for

the respondent/Police raised objection stating that the investigation is

pending. He would further submit that during the relevant point of time,

the appellants made cruelty and torture against the defacto complainant.

Therefore, if the appellants are released on bail, they would try to tamper

the witnesses.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.334 of 2022

5. Under Section 15(A) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities

Act, notice has been served to the defacto complainant. But none

appeared for submitting her case.

6. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on

either side are considered.

7. The second respondent police registered a case as against

the appellants in Crime No.6 of 2022, for the offences punishable under

Sections 498(A), 406 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST

Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The averments found in the First

Information Report clearly denote the fact that the alleged occurrence has

happened within the family of the defacto complainant and the

appellants. If the appellants still continuing the judicial custody the

chance of compromise in the family of the defacto complainant may be

ended in vain. More than that, the appellants are in judicial custody from

10.02.2022 onwards and therefore in the said circumstances for

completing the investigation, further custody of the appellants is not

necessary.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.334 of 2022

8. Taking into consideration the above said aspects,

particularly, considering the period of incarceration, this Court is

inclined to grant bail to the appellants subject to following conditions.

9. Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be released on

bail subject to the following conditions;

(a) each of the appellants 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 Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases-cum Principal Session Judge, Salem.

(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(c) the appellants are directed to report before the second respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

(d) the appellants 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 appellants in accordance with law as if the conditions have been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.334 of 2022

imposed and the appellants 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];