Madras High Court
Ponmuthukumaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 23 March, 2022
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
Ponmuthukumaran,
S/o.Kasinathan ... Appellant/A-2
versus
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District.
2.State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Ariyalur District.
(Crime No.9 of 2022)
2.Deepa,
W/o.Sankarapandiyan ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (POA) Act,
praying to set aside the order dated 05.03.2022 in Cr.M.P.No.660 of 2022
passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and enlarge the
appellant on bail in Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.V.Illanchezian
For Respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Respondent No.3 : Ms.Deepa
Party-in-person
JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 05.03.2022 made in
Cr.M.P.No.660 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Ariyalur, the appellant, who is the petitioner in the above referred petition,
arrayed as an accused in Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of AWPS, Ariyalur,
has prepared this Criminal Appeal and praying to set aside the above
referred order and to enlarge him on bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that during the relevant
point of time, the appellant being the father-in-law of the de facto
complainant, abused her by mentioning her caste name and also assaulted
her. When the same was questioned by the family members of the de facto
complainant, the appellant and his wife demanded more dowry. Further, the
appellant even after knowing the fact that the de facto complainant is his
daughter-in-law, misbehaved with her. Even after the date on which i.e. on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
20.04.2021, the de facto complainant set up a separate house at Erode, the
appellant had attempted to misbehave with her. So, upon the complaint
given by the de facto complainant, the respondent police registered a case as
against the appellant, his wife and son in Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of
the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b),
323, 354, 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(Va)
of SC/ST (POA) Act and later, arrested the appellant on 24.02.2022 and
remanded to judicial custody.
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 the appellant also
belongs to the community, which is recognised as scheduled caste. Due to
the family dispute, the de facto complainant raised such allegations against
the appellant and he is in judicial custody from 24.02.2022 onwards. Hence,
he prayed for bail by allowing this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing
for the respondent police raised objection stating that, investigation is
pending. However, he admits that a portion of investigation has been
completed.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the de facto complainant,
she has reiterated the averments found in the First Information Report.
Further, she has stated that if the appellant is released on bail, he may try to
threaten her and also cause disturbance to her family life. However, she
admits that the appellant also belongs to her community.
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side.
7. Admittedly, both the de facto complainant and the
appellant are belongs to the same community, which is recognised as
scheduled caste. Further, the appellant is the father-in-law and the alleged
complaint has been lodged by the de facto complainant due to family
dispute. As of now, a portion of investigation has been completed and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
further, the appellant is in judicial custody from 24.02.2022 onwards. In the
said occasion, since the appellant also belongs to the same community, it is
questionable whether the alleged offence committed under the provisions of
SC/ST Act, is attracted against him.
8. Therefore, taking into consideration of the above said
facts, particularly, on considering the period of incarceration and also by
considering the community of the appellant, this Court is inclined to grant
bail to the appellant subject to following conditions.
9. 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
Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur;
(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.278 of 2022
(c) the appellant is directed to stay at Cuddalore
and report before the Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Town
Police Station, 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.
23.03.2022
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Ariyalur District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore Town Police Station.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Trichy.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
sri
Crl.A.No.278 of 2022
23.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
