Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Rep. By on 3 February, 2022
A
n
i
m
p
l
i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
c
a
t
DATED : 03.02.2022
i
o CORAM:
n
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
o
f
Criminal Appeal Nos.16, 17, 18, 35 and 49 of 2022
t
h
e 1.Puli @ Surendar
2.Ajith
s 3.Raghul @ Raghupathy
e
r
4.Surya
i 5.Kumaran
o 6.Vicky @ Vignesh ... Appellants in
u Crl.A.No.16 of 2022
s
1.Madhan
n
2.Siva
a
t 3.Mookan ... Appellants in
u Crl.A.No.17 of 2022
r
e 1.Nandhakumar
2.Megavarnan ... Appellants in
o
Crl.A.No.18 of 2022
f
c Sathya ... Appellant in
r Crl.A.No.35 of 2022
i
m Karthick ...Appellant in
i
Crl.A.No.49 of 2022
n
a
l
p
r 1/16
o
c
e
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
e
d
..Vs..
1.The State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arakkonam,
Ranipet District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
Ranipet District,
Crime No.80/2021.
3.M.Soundarraj
4.Madhankumar
5.Vallarasu
6.Ravi
7.Valli
8.Lakshmi
9.Palani
10.Murugammal
11.Shalini
(Respondents 4 to 11 have been impleaded by this Court by
order dated 03.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1067, 1065/2022in
Crl.A.No.16 of 2022 by ADJCJ)
... Respondents in
Crl.A.Nos.16, 17 of 2022
1.State by
Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
Ranipet District,
Crime No.80/2021.
2.M.Soundarraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arakonam,
Ranipet District.
4.Madhan kumar
5.Vallarasu
6.Ravi
7.Valli
8.Palani
9.Murugammal
(Respondents 3 to 9 have been impleaded by this Court by
order dated 03.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.512/2022 in
Crl.A.No.18 of 2022 by ADJCJ)
... Respondents in
Crl.A.No.18 of 2022
1.The State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arakkonam,
Ranipet District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
Ranipet District,
Crime No.80/2021.
3.M.Soundarraj ... Respondents in
Crl.A.No.35 of 2022
1.The State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arakkonam,
Ranipet District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.State rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
Ranipet District,
3.M.Soundarraj ... Respondents in
Crl.A.No.49 of 2022
PRAYER: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 14(A)(1) of Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Amendment Act 2015 to set aside the order
dated 30.12.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.430, 431, 430, 390 and 418 of
2021 respectively on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court
for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Vellore and enlarge the
appellants on bail in connection with Crime No.80/2021 in Spl.S.C.No.12
of 2021 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of
Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Vellore.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
in Crl.A.Nos.16, 17 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.S.Sasikumar
in Crl.A.No.18 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.T.Arivarasan
in Crl.A.No.35 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.G.M.Shankar
in Crl.A.No.49 of 2022
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran for State
in all cases Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Mr.S.Parthasarathy
for defacto complainant /victims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Theses cases have been heard through video conferencing)
These Criminal appeals have been filed against the dismissal of
the bail applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.430, 431, 390 and 481 of 2021 by
order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court
for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Vellore.
2.The respondent has registered a case in Crime No.80/2021 on
08.04.2021 on the complaint of one Soundarraj for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 506 (ii), 307, 302 IPC read with Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The averments as
per the defacto complainant is that he is a resident of Thendral Nagar,
Arakkonam and that he has completed electrician course and was working
in SL Company. The native place of his mother is Sembedu village and
that he frequently used to visit his grandmother's house. Whileso on
07.04.2021 at about 07.30 p.m., while he was travelling in his two wheeler
along with his relative Appunu, the first accused had called the defacto
complainant. At that time, the pillion rider on seeing some known persons,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had called him. At that time, the first accused and the persons along with
him had questioned them as to why he had called him and thereafter, dashed
against the two wheeler and that they had also abused the defacto
complainant and his relative using filthy language and by calling their caste
name. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had gone back to his village and
he had called his friends and had returned back to the village of the accused.
At that time, the accused who were armed with deadly weapons had
surrounded them and assaulted with knife, stick and stones and due to
which, two persons who had accompanied the defacto complainant died and
other persons who accompanied the defacto complainant sustained grievous
injuries. Based on the complaint, the case was registered and later, after
completing the investigation, the respondent has filed final report and it has
been taken up for trial in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2021. The appellants/accused
had filed Crl.M.P.Nos. 430, 431, 390 and 481 of 2021 seeking for bail on
the file of the the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases
under SC/ST (POA) Act, Vellore and the same was dismissed by the Special
Court and against which, the present appeals are preferred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A8
and A13 in Crl.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2022 would submit that it is a case
where the defacto complainant and his men are the aggressors. Even as per
the defacto complainant, they were stated to have been abused by the first
accused, while he was crossing the village. The incident had happened at
06.30 p.m. whereas the defacto complainant had returned back to his village
and gathered his men and thereafter they have come to the village of the
accused and the incident had happened when they have formed an unlawful
assembly and come to the village of the accused. It is not a case where the
accused have gone to the village of the deceased. He would further submit
that some of the accused were arrested and some of them have surrendered
before the jurisdictional Magistrate Courts. He would submit that right
from the date of arrest, they are in the judicial custody. Meanwhile, pursuant
to the detention order passed on 06.05.2021 and 07.05.2021, the first
accused and the third accused in this case were detained and this Court by
its order dated 23.12.2021, had quashed the detention orders in respect of
the accused. He would further submit that since the appellants were in
preventive detention, they did not move for bail. In respect of the Accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.14, he was not detained and he had applied for bail in Crl.M.P.No.190 of
2021 and was granted bail by the Special Judge on 20.07.2021. He would
reiterate that as per the prosecution, it is not a pre-planned incident and the
incident had happened, when the defacto complainant along with his men
had come to the village of the appellants and created ruckus. He would
submit that the accused A1, A2, A3 were arrested on 09.04.2021, A5 and
A6 were arrested on 27.04.2021, A4 and A13 surrendered on 15.04.2021,
A7 and A8 surrendered on 19.04.2021. He would submit that the appellants
are prepared to abide by any stringent conditions imposed on them and they
may be granted bail so as to conduct the trial.
4.Mr.S.Sasikumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
Crl.A.No.18 of 2022 would submit that the appellants/A10 and A12
surrendered on 09.04.2021 and they may be granted bail so as to conduct
the trial.
5.Mr.T.Arivarasn, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.35/2022
would submit that the appellant/A11 was in the judicial custody for the past
275 days and that he may be enlarged on bail so as to conduct the trial.
6.Mr.G.M.Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2022 would submit that the appellant/A9 was remanded to the judicial
custody on 10.04.2021 and that the appellant would abide by any stringent
condition imposed by this court and the appellant may be granted bail so as
to conduct trial.
7.The first respondent has filed separate counters in all the appeals.
8.Mr.S.S.Sugendran, learned Government Advocate (crl side)
appearing for the State would submit that the defacto complainant belongs
to scheduled caste community. On 07.04.2021 at 07.30 p.m., the defacto
complainant along with his relative had passed through the village of the
accused in a two wheeler. The accused had waylaid him and abused him by
calling his caste name and assaulted him. Thereafter, the defacto
complainant had gone back to the village and to discuss as to why they were
treated like that, he along with his relatives have gone to the village of the
accused. The accused who are totally 14 in number, surrounded them and
assaulted them with deadly weapons and wooden log and due to which the
defacto complainant and his relatives sustained grievous injuries. He would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submit that in the incident, due to the injuries suffered, two persons
succumbed to the injuries and three persons sustained grievous injury. He
would submit that the defacto complainant and their relatives were unarmed
and the accused had assaulted them, since they belong to the scheduled
caste community. He would further submit that the investigation has been
completed, the charge sheet has been filed and the case has been taken up
for trial in Special S.C.No.12 of 2021 and it stands posted for framing
charges on 15.02.2022 and there are 64 witnesses in this case and thereby he
would object for grant of bail to the appellants.
9.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the intervenor/victims in all
the cases would submit that the defacto complainant belongs to the
scheduled caste community. While he along with his relatives were passing
the village in their two wheeler the accused who belong to the most
backward community have waylaid and abused them calling by their caste
name and also assaulted them. Thereafter, in order to arrive at a
compromise, the defacto complainant have gone back to the village of the
accused. They were unarmed and when they were discussing, the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
assaulted them indiscriminately with deadly weapons and wooden logs and
stones due to which two persons died and three other persons sustained
grievous injuries. He would submit that tension prevails in the village and
the accused had threatened the relatives of the victims and that there is
possibility of threatening the witnesses. He would submit that on
02.02.2022, the villages have given a representation to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. He would further submit that in several cases of
similar nature, this Court had dismissed the bail application/appeal filed and
thereby would object for grant of bail to the appellants.
10.Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials on record.
11.The case of the prosecution is that when the defacto complainant
and the relatives had passed the village of the accused in their two wheeler,
the first accused along with his friends had waylaid and abused him by
calling his caste name. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had gone back
to his village and gathered his men and gone to the village of the accused
where the incident is alleged to have taken place. The investigation has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and the case has been
taken up for trial in Special S.C.No.12 of 2021 and it stands posted for
framing charges on 15.02.2022. The detention orders have also been
quashed. The appellants are in custody for almost 9 months.
12.Taking into consideration of the facts and the submissions made,
this court is of the opinion that the appeals may be allowed and the bail may
be granted to the Appellants. Accordingly, the criminal appeals are
allowed. The orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.430, 431, 390 and 418 of 2021
dated 30.12.2021 are set aside.
13.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
appellants/accused subject to the following conditions, while protecting the
interest of the defacto complainant and the prosecution witnesses:
(a) Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be
released on bail on condition to execute their own bond for
Rs.10,000/- before the Superintendent of the concerned
prison/Jailor concerned, in which the appellants have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
confined and thereafter, on their release, the appellants shall
execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only), each for a like sum to the
satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for
trial cases under SC/ST Act (POA), Vellore, Vellore District
and on further conditions that:
(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 on their release from prison shall
report before the trial court daily at 10.30a.m. until further
orders. The appellants shall not enter into the jurisdictional
limits of the respondent police/Arakkonam Taluk.
(d) the appellants shall not commit any offences of
similar nature;
(e) the appellants shall not abscond during trial;
(f) the appellants shall not tamper with evidence or
witness during trial;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(g) 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];
(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can
be registered under Section 229A IPC.
03.02.2022
Note :Issue copy on 04.02.2022. 2/2
vri/shk
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arakkonam,
Ranipet District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
Ranipet District,
Crime No.80/2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for trial cases
under SC/ST Act (POA),
Vellore, Vellore District.
4.The Central Prison,
Vellore.
5.The Public Prosecutor (Crl side),
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.,
vri/shk
Crl. A. No.16, 17, 18, 35 and 49 of 2022
03.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
