Madras High Court
M.Vignesh vs State Represented By on 10 March, 2022
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
M.Vignesh ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mangalam Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District
(crime No.510 of 2021)
2.M.Padavettan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set
aside the order passed by the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under
SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai dated 11.01.2022 in Crl.MP.No.1148 of
2021 in Cr.No.510 of 2021 and to enlarge the appellant on bail.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
For R2 : No appearance
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 11.01.2022, made in
Crl.MP.No.1148 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of
Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai, the petitioner therein, who
is the accused in Cr.No.510 of 2021 on the file of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai
District, preferred this appeal praying to set aside the order dated
11.01.2022 and to enlarge him on bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
lodged a complaint alleging that the appellant viz., Vignesh under the guise
of marriage, had sexual intercourse with his daughter-Ramya, due to which
she got pregnant and thereafter the appellant refused to marry her and also
insulted her stating their caste. While being so, on 17.12.2021 at about
10.00 a.m., the said Ramya consumed Arali seed poison and when she was
brought to the hospital, she declared dead. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
case. During the relevant point of time, the deceased and the appellant fell
in love with each other, due to which both of them involved in sexual
activities. Afterwards, when at the time the deceased requested the appellant
for marry her, the parents of the appellant refused to give permission to the
appellant for marrying the deceased. Only in the said occasion, the deceased
by consuming Arali seed committed suicide. Therefore the appellant is not
played any active role in the alleged occurrence. In otherwise, the alleged
rape committed by the appellant is with the consent of the victim girl and
therefore Section 376 of IPC is not attracted. Hence, he prays for grant of
bail to the appellant.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
respondent police reiterated the facts of the case and submitted if this
appellant is released on bail, he may try to tamper the witness and hamper
the investigation.
5. In respect of the victim, already notice has been sent and after
receipt of the same, he has not appeared before this Court. Hence, this Court
directed the Registry to print the name of the defacto complainant in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
cause list and even after printing the name of the defacto complainant in the
cause list, none appeared on behalf of him.
6. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent
police are considered.
7. The petitioner is the first offender. The respondent police
registered a case against the appellant for the offence punishable under
Sections 417, 376(1), 294(b), 306 of IPC r/w 3(2) (v), 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 2015. The averments found in the first information report would
disclose the fact that previous to the occurrence, both the deceased and the
appellant fell in love with each other. Further they were indulged in sexual
activities and as a result of which, the deceased becomes pregnant. Only
thereafter, since the appellant has refused to marry her, she committed
suicide. In this occasion, it was admitted on the side of the prosecution,
portion of the investigation has been completed. Further, the appellant is
under incarceration from 18.12.2021 onwards.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
8. Therefore, taking note of all the above said aspects into
consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the
appellant and also the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant
bail to the appellant with certain conditions.
9. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Special Court for
Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai dated 11.01.2022 in
Crl.MP.No.1148 of 2021 is set aside and the appellant is enlarged on bail on
the following conditions:
(a) the appellant is ordered to be released on
bail on executing 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 Court for Trial of Cases
under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai.
(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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
(c) the appellant shall report before the
respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until
further orders.
(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.
10. With the above directions, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.
10.03.2022
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
lok
To
1.The learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under
SC/ST(POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mangalam Police Station,
Tiruvannamalai District
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
Crl.A.No.57 of 2022
10.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
