Mari @ Marisamy vs The State Rep. By
2023 Latest Caselaw 15366 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15366 Mad
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2023

Madras High Court

Mari @ Marisamy vs The State Rep. By on 30 November, 2023

                                                                              Crl. A.(MD)No.959 of 2023



                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                      Reserved on           : 23.11.2023
                                      Pronounced on         : 30.11.2023


                                                       CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

                                             Crl. A.(MD)No.959 of 2023

            Mari @ Marisamy                                                 ... Appellant

                                                      Vs.


            1.The State Rep. by
              The Assistant Superintendent of Police,
              Aruppukottai Sub Division,
              Virudhunagar District.

            2.State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
              Kariapatti Police Station,
              Virudhunagar Distict.

            3.M.Ramamoorthi                                                .. Respondents



            Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act,

            2015 as Amended by Act 1 of 2016, to call for the records pertaining to the order

            passed in Cr.M.P.No.3535 of 2023 on the file of Session Judge, Special Court for

            Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputtur dated

            1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl. A.(MD)No.959 of 2023

            17.10.2023 and set aside the same as illegal and enlarge the appellant on bail by

            allowing the appeal.



                            For Appellants       : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj
                            For R1 and R2        : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
                                                   Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                        ********

                                                      JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the

order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3535 of 2023 on the file of Session Judge, Special Court

for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputtur dated

17.10.2023 and set aside the same as illegal and enlarge the appellant on bail by

allowing the appeal.

2. According to the prosecution the appellant and other accused said to

have committed the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324,

506(ii) and 302 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA)

Amendment Act.

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 27.06.2023 at about 10.00 p.m.,

when the de-facto complainant's father namely Mayakrishnan was sitting in front of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

his house and was having food, at that time 10 persons, who belonged to Thevar

Community came there and asked him in the following manner 'vt;tsT jpkpUe;jh

ehq;fs; tUk;NghJ cl;fhh;e;J nfhz;bUg;g” and the accused Shanmuganathan

@ Sathasivam kicked the de-facto complainant's father and assaulted on his head

with wooden log and the appellant and other accused persons said to have attacked

the de-facto complainant's father and also threatened him with dire consequences.

Due to that the de-facto complainant's father had crush injuries on his head and was

died on 30.06.2023. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the

respondent police and F.I.R was registered in Crime No.141 of 2023 against the

appellant and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 148,

294(b), 323, 324, 506(2), 302 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST

(POA) Act.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the case of the

prosecution is entirely false and the case is a foisted one against the appellant and he

has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further

submit that the deceased was convicted earlier and sentenced for murdering his wife

and he was in prison for 12 years and subsequently coming out from the prison and

involved in sexually harassing the village ladies, in which, he misbehaved with one

lady Vasuki. He would further submit that the appellant was arrested and remanded

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

to judicial custody on 01.07.2023 and he is in judicial custody for more than 113

days and the respondent police completed the investigation and filed charge sheet

before the Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Srivilliputhur. He

would further submit that the appellant is willing to produce sufficient sureties for

the appearance and the appellant will never abscond and will not tamper the

witnesses and also submitted that this Court has granted bail to the co-accused and

hence he seeks to grant bail to the appellant.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first and

second respondents would submit that totally there are seven accused in this case and

investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed under Sections

147, 148, 149, 114, 294(b), 323, 302, 506(2) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),

3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act before the Special Court for Trial of SC/ST

(POA) Act Cases, Srivilliputhur by deleting one of the accused namely Sathish and

final report has yet to be taken on file. He would further submit that this appellant

attacked the deceased with wooden log on his head, which resulted the death of

deceased and he raised strong objection and prayed to dismiss this appeal.

6.The learned counsel for the third respondent/de-facto complainant would

submit that only 15 families belonged to the de-facto complainant are residing in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

said village and more than 150 families of accused's community are residing in the

said village and if the accused person is released on bail, he will threaten the

witnesses and also tamper the evidence. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

7.Considering the above facts and circumstances and also considering the

fact that the co-accused were arrested and thereafter relased on bail by this Court and

the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and also

considering the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal

Appeal by setting aside the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P.No.3535 of

2023 on the file of the learned Session Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST

(POA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputtur.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated

17.10.2023 passed in Cr.M.P.No.3535 of 2023 on the file of the Session Judge,

Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District,

Srivilliputtur, is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his

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 Session Judge, Special

Court for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputtur, and

on further conditions that:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in

the surety bond and the Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases,

Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputtur, may obtain a copy of their valid identity card to

ensure their identity.

(b) the appellant shall stay at Dindigul and report before the Dindigul

Town Police Station, daily at 10.30 am and 5.30 p.m., until further orders, except on

hearing dates.

(c) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses, during

investigation or trial.

(d) the appellant shall co-operate with the investigation.

(e) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].