Madras High Court
P.Senthil @ Senthilkumar vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police on 18 April, 2022
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
P.Senthil @ Senthilkumar ... Appellant/A11
vs.
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore
2.The State rep by the Inspector of Police,
Sulthanpettai Police Station,
Coimbatore
Crime No.59 of 2022
3.Lakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule
Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as
amended by Act 1 of 2016) praying to set aside the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.933 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 on the file of the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and enlarge the appellant
on bail in Crime No.59 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent police.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Kingsly Solomon
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
For Respondent-3 : Mr.B.Mohan
JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 08.03.2022 made in
Crl.M.P.No.933 of 2022, on the file of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, the appellant who is arrayed as accused No.11
in Crime No.59 of 2022 on the file of the Sulthanpettai Police Station, has
preferred this criminal appeal praying to set aside the order dated
08.03.2022 and to enlarge him on bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is
the wife of the deceased. A4 is the milk vendor. During the relevant point of
time, the deceased who is the husband of the defacto complainant, dashed
against a vehicle in inebriated mood, due to which the milk carried by A4
was was poured on the road. Thereafter, both of them returned to their
respective houses. Later, all the accused including the appellant joined
together and went into the defacto complainant's house and after picking up
quarrel with the defacto complainant, abused the defacto complainant by
using filthy language and by referring her caste name. Further, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
assaulted the defacto complainant's husband who was sleeping at that time.
Further, other accused assaulted the deceased with wooden log. More than
that, during the same occurrence, all the accused assaulted the defacto
complainant's daughter in law also. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely
implicated in this case. He would further submit that for the same incident, a
counter case has been registered based upon the complaint given by one,
Marimuthu who is arrayed as accused No.1 in this case. As of now,
investigation has been completed and further, the appellant is in judicial
custody from 12.02.2022 onwards. Hence, he prays to set aside the
impugned order and to release the accused on bail.
4. Opposing to grant bail, the learned Government Advocate
(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/Police submits that if these type of
petitioners are released on bail, they may try to tamper the witness and
hamper the investigation. According to him, being the reason that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
alleged occurrence had happened due to communal rivalry, the prayer
sought for by the appellants cannot be entertained. However he admits that
as of now, portion of investigation has been completed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent,
reiterating the contentions of the learned Government Advocate, also raised
objection to allow this criminal appeal.
6. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
either side are considered.
7. The respondent police registered a case for the offence under
Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 427, 355, 307 of IPC and Section 4 of TN
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(u), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015 @ Sections 147, 148,
294(b), 323, 427, 355, 302 of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002 r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u),
3(2)(va) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015. The appellant is in the judicial
custody from 12.02.2022 onwards. As of now, during the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
investigation, eight witnesses have been examined and their statements are
also recorded. Further, material objects which are required for proving the
prosecution case also been recovered. Further, it is a case of case in counter
and thereby, both the accused as well as the defacto complainant are
sufferers in the alleged occurrence. Therefore, taking into consideration of
the nature of offence committed by the appellant, particularly considering
the period of incarceration and also considering that some of the co-accused
were already granted bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant
by allowing this criminal appeal.
8. 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
Judicial Magistrate, Sulur.
(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.395 of 2022
Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank
Pass Book to ensure their identity;
(c) The appellant shall stay at Tiruchirapalli and
report before the Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police
Station, Trichy, daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The
appellant shall not enter into occurrence village without
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
In the result, the order passed by the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.933 of 2022 dated
08.03.2022 is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.
18.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lok
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
lok
To
1.The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore
2.The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sulur.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore
4.The Inspector of Police,
Sulthanpettai Police Station,
Coimbatore
5.The Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station,
Trichy
6.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.A.No.395 of 2022
18.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
