Madras High Court
Ashokan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 September, 2022
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Appeal No.1057 of 2022
Ashokan ... Appellant
..vs..
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Vadakkipalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by Inspector of Police,
Vadakkipalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District,
Crime No.133 of 2022.
3.Ramkumar ... Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act) to set aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Coimbatore in C.M.P.No.4061 of 2022 dated 29.08.2022
dismissing the bail petition and release the appellant on bail in Crime
No.133 of 2022.
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.Deepan Uday
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R1 & R2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated
29.8.2022 passed in C.M.P.No.4061 of 2022 by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and also perused
the materials available on record.
3. Based on the complaint given by third respondent/de-facto
complainant, the respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.133 of
2022 against the appellant herein/A1 and six others for the offences
under Section 120(B), 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act
2015 and the appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
15.8.2022. The appellant/A1 has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.4061 of
2022 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore
seeking bail and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the
appellant/A1 and other accused entered into the place where the de-facto
complainant and other victims are residing and indiscriminately attacked
them with wooden logs and also abused them by using their caste name.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 submitted that the
appellant and the de-facto complainant are from same community,
therefore, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 would
not attract. Due to previous enmity, the de-facto complainant has foisted
a false complaint against the appellant. The prosecution has not properly
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
investigated the case and arrested and remanded the appellant. The trial
Court has failed to consider that both the appellant and the third
respondent are from same community and dismissed the petition.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 submitted that due to previous enmity the appellant
and others attacked the de-facto complainant. Further some of the
accused are still absconding and investigation is still pending. In such
circumstances, if the appellant is released on bail, the occurrence will
further escalate and hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Admittedly, totally seven accused are involved in the alleged
offences and the appellant herein is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.133 of
2022 on the file of the respondent/Police and he was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 15.08.2022 for the offences under
Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and Section
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w Section
3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
8.The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that both the appellant/A1 and the de-facto complainant are from same
community and hence, SC/ST Act would not attract. Due to previous
enmity, a false case has been foisted against the appellant and others. The
further contention is that the de-facto complainant is also involved in
criminal cases under the POCSO Act cases. Therefore, the appellant has
to be enlarged on bail.
9. On a perusal of the entire materials, it would reveal that the
appellant has not furnished any document to show that the appellant and
de-facto complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste Community. Though
the appellant is in custody from 15.08.2022, if at all he belonged to the
said community, he should have submitted the Community Certificate
either before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court.
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
10.Considering the serious nature of the offences and also
considering the fact that several accused are involved in the alleged
offences and that the investigation is in a preliminary stage and charge
sheet has not yet been filed and hence, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the appellant.
11. In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
09.09.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
ms
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Vadakkipalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Vadakkipalayam Police Station,
Coimbatore District,
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
Crl.A.No.1057 of 2022
09.09.2022
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
