Madras High Court
Vinayagam vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 9 August, 2023
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
Vinayagam ...Appellant
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Villupuram Range
VOC Street, Thiru vi ka Road
Villupuram HO, Villupuram 605 602
2. The State rep by its
Inspector of Police
Periyathachur Police Station
Villupuram 604 306
3. Divyabarathi .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by
Act 1/2016 to set aside the order dated 07.07.2023 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.1862 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for exclusive trial of
cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SC/ST (POA) Act) Villiupuram, and to
enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Crime No.109 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.L. Infant Dinesh
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S. Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 : Mr. K. Sathyaraj
JUDGMENT
The present Criminal Appeal is filed against the orders dated
07.07.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1862 of 2023 , on the file of the Special
Court for SC/ST Cases, Villupuram, and to enlarge the appellant, who is the
1st accused in Crime No.109/2023 of Periyathachur Police Station,
Villupuram 604 306.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant belongs
to Scheduled Caste Community and the appellant/accused belongs to Yadava
community. The appellant/accused and the defacto complainant got married
on 29.10.2020 against the wishes of their parents. Subsequently, they got
separated and the defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector
of Police, Periyathachur Police Station, Villupuram, against the appellant,
her in-laws (parents of the appellant) and her brother-in-law by stating that
her in-laws assaulted her and also abused her in filthy language mentioning
her community. The further allegation of the defacto complainant is that she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
was threatened with dire consequences.
2.1. Based on the complaint, the Inspector of Police, Periyathachur
Police Station, Villupuram, registered an FIR in Crime No.109 of 2023
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323,
506(i) IPC, 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002
r/w 3(1)(f), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) and 3(1) (w) (ii) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter the appellant/accused was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody.
2.2. The appellant filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in
Crl.M.P. No.1862 of 2023 before the Sessions Judge, Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Villupuram. The
learned trial court judge, vide her orders dated 07.07.2023, dismissed the said
petition on the ground that the investigation is still pending and that if the
accused is released on bail he would tamper with the witnesses.
2.3. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by
the accused.
3. Heard Mr.L. Infant Dinesh, learned counsel for the appellant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. K. Sathyaraj,
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant.
4. Mr.L. Infant Dinesh, learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the appellant has not committed any offence under the SC/ST Act and
that the investigation has also been completed and hence prayed for grant of
bail to the appellant.
5. Mr. K. Sathyaraj, learned counsel for the defacto complainant did
not raise any serious objections but he pressed for the return of the articles
belonging to the defacto complainant by the appellant. The learned counsel
for the appellant contended that the appellant is ready to return back all the
jewels and other articles to the defacto complainant. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor contended that the investigation has been completed and
that the charge sheet has been filed in e-filing No.2154/2023.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
appellant/accused is enlarged on bail, on the following conditions:
i. The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, with
two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like
sum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
Exclusive Trial of cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Villupuram;
ii. the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression
on the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their
Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
iii. the appellant shall report before the respondent/police as and when
required;
iv. on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions
Judge 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 Sessions Judge himself as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala
[(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and
v. if the appellant thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under
Section 229A IPC.
09.08.2023
bga
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases registered
under SC/ST(POA) Act, Villupuram
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Villupuram Range
VOC Street, Thiru vi ka Road
Villupuram HO, Villupuram 605 602
3. The State rep by its
Inspector of Police
Periyathachur Police Station
Villupuram 604 306
4. The Superintendent of Prison
Cuddalore Prison, Cuddalore.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
R.HEMALATHA, J.
bga
Crl.A.No.778 of 2023
09.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
