Madras High Court
Silambarasan vs The State Represented By on 30 June, 2022
Crl.A.No.509 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.509 of 2022
Silambarasan,
S/o.Sooriyamoorthy ... Appellant
Versus
1.The State Represented by,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Salem,
Salem District.
2.The State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Kitchipalayam Police Station,
Salem District.
In Crime No.1182/2020
3.C.Jansirani ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed u/s.14A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Amended Act 2015, praying to set
aside the order made in C.M.P.No.1395 of 2022 dated 19.04.2022 passed by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge of Salem and to enlarge the
petitioner on bail and allowing the appeal.
For Appellant : M/s.G.Antoprince
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R3 : Mr.Sankarasubbu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.A.No.509 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Salem in C.M.P.No.1395 of 2022 in Spl.S.C.No.6 of 2021,
thereby denying bail to the appellant.
2. The appellant is arrayed as Accused No.1. In this case, the learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that, this appellant is under
incarceration for 549 days from 28.12.2020. He would submit that the earlier bail
applications were all dismissed only on the ground that the prosecution presented
a picture as if he has got several cases and by producing typed set of papers
containing the list of cases against the appallent.
3. He would further submit that a perusal of the list of 27 cases against the
appellant, it is found that atleast three cases were not at all connected with the
appellant. Of the rest of cases about 12 cases were in the nature of 110, 107, LIR
proceedings. In the rest of the 6 cases, he would submit that cases of extortion
under Section 397 IPC were put up cases and the appellant never involved in the
same and in other cases, he has been acquitted also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.509 of 2022
4. He would submit that there are only four cases pending against him and
only on the ground that 27 cases are against the appellant, earlier bail
applications were dismissed.
5. He would further submit that the appellant after being heart broken for
the repeated cases foisted against him attempted to commit suicide by setting
himself on fire and suffered injuries all over his body and he needs medical care
and therefore, he is not likely to indulge in any other offence, if he is enlarged on
bail.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for
the first and second respondents, would submit that he is a history sheeter with
27 cases. Even though, the other cases are for violation of bond, the petitioner
repeatedly violated the bond conditions and disturbed the peace and tranquillity
in the area. The other cases under Sections 302 and 307 IPC are also pending
against the appellant. As a matter of fact, to pressurise the prosecution, the
appellant had also attempted to commit suicide and for the same also he has been
prosecuted. Further, he would submit that there is a grave gang war and both the
gangs are indulging in deadly attacks and if the appellant is enlarged on bail, his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.509 of 2022
own life will also be under threat and therefore, he strongly opposed for grant of
bail.
7. The learned Counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that if
the appellant is enlarged on bail, the life of the prosecution witnesses will be
under threat and the murder was committed in a gruesome manner by
appellant/accused No.1 and he is still hale and healthy. He had earlier attempted
to kill the victim within the Court premises itself and therefore, the bail should
not be granted to him.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both sides and
perused the material records on this case.
9. Considering the gruesome nature of the earlier case that the petitioner
attempted on the life of the victim within the Court premises itself and
considering the previous antecedents and the fact that there is a life threat against
him also, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. Therefore, the
present Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. However, inspite of the earlier
direction of this Court to dispose the case within a period of six months, the Trial
has not commenced. Now, the pandemic period is also over and the prosecution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.509 of 2022
is directed to expedite the trial and the Trial Court is requested to take up the case
on day to day basis and complete the trial considering the fact that the appellant
is under incarceration for 549 days.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
30.06.2022
Index : yes/no (2/2)
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
sp
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem, Salem District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem, Salem District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam Police Station, Salem District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.509 of 2022
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sp
Crl.A.No.509 of 2022
30.06.2022
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
