Madras High Court
Ayesha Kallashi vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 13 April, 2023
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 24.04.2023
Delivered on : 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
Ayesha Kallashi ... Appellant/
Accused No.1
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tiruchendur,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kulasekarapattinam Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.45 of 2023) ... Respondent/
Complainant
3.Thangammal ... Respondent/
Defacto
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA)
Act 2015, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the
1 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi in
Crl.M.P.No.308 of 2023 vide order dated 13.04.2023 and set aside the same
and consequently release the appellant on bail in connection with the Crime
No.45 of 2023 pending on the file of the second respondent.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST
(PoA) Act, Thoothukudi (FAC), in Crl.M.P.No.308 of 2023 dated 13.04.2023
and enlarge the appellant on bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the third respondent/defacto
complainant is residing at Puthu Colony, Udangudi and her husband
Sudalaimadan was working as a sweeper in Udangudi Panchayat for the past
30 years, that the appellant/first accused, who is the Ex-President of
Udangudi Panchayat for getting promotion demanded few lakhs from the said
2 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
Sudalaimadan, but he could not pay the amount as demanded by the appellant
and the other accused, that on 17.03.2023 at about 06.15 a.m., when the said
Sudalaimadan was present in the Panchayat office on Muster roll, the
appellant came there and called him as “rf;fpypa gaNy cdf;nfy;yhk;
gjtp cah;T Nghl;L juZkh> A+dpghh;k; Nghl;Ll;L Ngha; rhf;filia
Ngha; ms;S”and humiliated him in the presence of public and other
witnesses and that the said Sudalaimadan returned home and instigated by the
appellant, had committed suicide by consuming poison.
3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the third respondent, FIR
came to be registered in Crime No.45 of 2023 against two persons including
the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 186 IPC and
Sections 3(l)(r) and 3(l)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Subsequently, the case was altered into Sections 294(b), 186, 306, 109, 212
IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (V) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment
Act 2015.
4. It is not in dispute that the appellant has filed a petition for bail in
Crl.M.P.No.308 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi
3 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
(FAC), on 13.04.2023. Challenging the same, the appellant has preferred this
Criminal appeal.
5. The case of the appellant/first accused is that the allegation that
the appellant has not considered the deceased Sudalaimadan for promotion
cannot be construed as an act of instigating, inciting or abetting so as to
attract the offence under Section 306 IPC, that the appellant is not the
authority competent to consider the promotion of the deceased Sudalaimadan,
that the Government officials alone are having powers under Tamil Nadu
Panchayat Act to decide about the promotions, that since the appellant had no
role in the matter of promotion, the allegation as if she had abused could not
be true and that the appellant is an innocent and she has been falsely
implicated in the above case.
6. The case of the third respondent/defacto complainant is that after
the registration of the FIR, the appellant along with her son and daughter-in-
law had absconded, that her application filed before this Court in Crl.O.P.
(MD)No.5429 of 2023 was ordered to be dismissed and that since the
appellant is an influential lady, she will tamper the witnesses and there is a
possibility of life threat to the third respondent, if released on bail.
4 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2
and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the appellant has been suffering from number of health aliments, that she
has recently undergone a major medication, that the appellant is now aged 66
years and that as per the advice of Doctor, she has to be under complete bed
rest. He would further submit that at the time of remanding the appellant,
considering her health conditions, she was directed to be admitted in the
hospital, that the hospital authorities have been taking various medical tests
and that since her health condition is seriously affected, she may be enlarged
on bail.
9. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.04.2023,
considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 that the appellant is taking inpatient treatment in
Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, the first respondent police was
directed to get a report from the hospital authority with regard to the health
5 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
condition of the appellant. When the matter was taken up for hearing on
24.04.2023, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the report
issued by the Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, wherein, it has been
stated that the appellant's High Blood Pressure and High Blood Sugar were
brought under control over a period of aggressive medical management, that
since the appellant had recurrent chest pain, she was taken for coronary
angiogram on 21.04.2023, that angiogram showed normal epicardial coronary
arteries and that if there are no complications, the appellant will be likely to
be discharged on forenoon of 24.04.2023. Subsequently, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would
submit that the appellant was discharged from the hospital and she was sent to
prison on the afternoon of 22.04.2023.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the appellant herself has given a
confession statement, wherein, after elaborating about the incident occurred at
06.15 a.m., at the Panchayat office, she has further stated that at about 07.00
a.m., on that day, after coming to know about the incident occurred at 06.15
a.m., the appellant's daughter-in-law came to the Panchayat office and
enquired the Executive Officer as to why duty was allotted to the deceased
6 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
Sudalaimadan, despite his objectionable conduct against her mother-in-law,
that the deceased Sudalaimadan was called over phone and informed him that
since he had raised voice against them, he cannot be allotted with any work,
that resolution will be passed dismissing him from service and directed him to
go out of the campus and that thereafter, he went to his home and consumed
poison.
11. Admittedly, the appellant is the Ex-President of Udangudi
Panchayat and at present her daughter-in-law Humaira Rameesh Fathima is
the President of the said Panchayat.
12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the third respondent, though the appellant's daughter-in-law is the
President of Udangudi Panchayat, the appellant had visited the Panchayat
office at about 06.15 a.m. on the occurrence date and attended the muster roll
and on seeing the deceased Sudalaimadan was not in proper uniform, she
abused him in filthy language using caste name and uttered the words as
referred above.
13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent
7 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
would submit that immediately after the two occurrences allegedly held at
06.15 a.m. and 07.00 a.m. in the Panchayat office, the deceased Sudalaimadan
went to his home and consumed monocrotophos medicine, that immediately
he was taken to Udangudi Government Hospital and after first aid, he was
taken to Tiruchendur Government Hospital through 108 ambulance, that later
he was referred to Government Hospital, Thoothukudi, that while the said
Sudalaimadan was taking treatment in Thoothukudi Government Hospital,
complaint came to be lodged and on that basis, the present FIR came to be
registered in Crime No.45 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and
186 IPC and Sections 3(l)(r) and 3(l)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 and that since the said Sudalaimadan had died subsequently, the
case was altered into Sections 294(b), 186, 306, 109, 212 IPC and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (V) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015.
14. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, co-accused Syed Sirajudeen was granted bail by this Court
in Crl.A.(MD)No.333 of 2023 on 21.04.2023.
15. Admittedly, the allegation against the co-accused Syed
Sirajudeen is that he had helped the appellant financially subsequent to the
8 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
occurrence. Hence, the granting of bail to the co-accused Syed Sirajudeen, by
no stretch of imagination can be considered as reason or ground to grant bail
to the present appellant, who is the first and main accused.
16. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
second accused, Executive Officer and the appellant's son and daughter-in-
law are still absconding.
17. It is pertinent to note that though the appellant was arrested on
10.04.2023 and was remanded to judicial custody, she was admitted in the
hospital on 10.04.2023 and thereafter she was discharged on 22.04.2023.
18. As rightly pointed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the third respondent, the appellant had absconded herself from
18.03.2023 till 10.04.2023 successfully along with her son and daughter-in-
law.
19. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 would submit that if the appellant is released on bail, she
9 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
will tamper the witnesses and there is every possibility of threatening the
third respondent and the other witnesses.
20. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the
nature and gravity of the offence alleged and the period of judicial custody
and also taking note of the objections of the prosecution that the appellant
will abscond and will tamper the witnesses and threaten the third respondent
and the other witnesses, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the appellant on bail at this point of time. Consequently, this Court
concludes that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
21. In the result, this Criminal Appeal Petition is dismissed.
26.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
csm
10 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tiruchendur,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kulasekarapattinam Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
11 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
csm
Pre-delivery order made in
Crl. A.(MD)No.320 of 2023
Dated : 26.04.2023
12 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
