B.Ashok Kumar vs The State Rep By
2024 Latest Caselaw 7513 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7513 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 April, 2024

Madras High Court

B.Ashok Kumar vs The State Rep By on 5 April, 2024

                                                                          Crl.A.(MD).No.230 of 2024

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 05.04.2024

                                                     CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                            Crl.A.(MD).No.230 of 2024


                     1.B.Ashok Kumar

                     2.A.Sundar @ Kaleeswaran

                     3.A.Mohammed Hafeez                            ... Appellants /
                                                                    Accused Nos.1 to 3

                                                     Vs.

                     1.The State Rep by
                       The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Paramakudi Town Police Station,
                       Ramanathapuram Distrtict.

                     2.The Inspector of Police,
                       Paramakudi Town Police Station,
                       Paramakudi,
                       Ramanathapuram District.
                       Crime No.70 of 2024                          ... Respondents
                                                                               / Complainant

                     3.Samuel                                       ... 3rd Respondent /
                                                                     De-facto Complainant



                     Page 1 of 10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             Crl.A.(MD).No.230 of 2024

                     PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14 A (2) of SC/ST
                     (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2015 r/w
                     Section 439 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records relating to the order
                     dated 06.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.NO.332 of 2024 by the Special Court for
                     SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Ramanathapuram and set aside
                     the same as arbitrary and consequently to release the appellants on Bail in
                     connection with the Crime No.70 of 2024 on the file of 2nd respondent
                     Police Station.


                                  For Appellant     : Mr.K.Samidurai

                                  For Respondents   : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
                                                      Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
                                                             For R1 & R2

                                                    :Mr.V.Kannan
                                                     Legal-Aid-Counsel for R3


                                                     JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned

order passed in Crl.M.P.No.332 of 2024 dated 06.03.2024, on the file of the

learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA)

Act, Ramanathapuram and enlarge the appellants on bail in connection with

Crime No.70 of 2024, on the file of the second respondent police.

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

2.1. According to the prosecution, the appellants are said to have

committed the offences under Sections 363, 324, 506(ii) of IPC and 3(2)

(Va) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act 2015.

2.2. According to the defacto-complainant, he is a previous

employer of the accused No.1's company, namely, J.J.Gold and while he was

working in the said company, some dispute arose between them, due to

which, there was some altercation between the parties. In the result, the

defacto complainant was said to have been assaulted by the appellants and

was abused by using his caste name. Therefore, the defacto complainant has

given a complaint before the second respondent police, and the same was

registered in Crime No.70 of 2024 against all the appellants for the offences

under Sections 363, 324, 506(ii) of IPC and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Prevention

of Atrocities Amendment Act 2015, and they were arrested. Thereafter, the

appellants filed a petition for bail in Cr.M.P.No.332 of 2024 before the

learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA)

Act, Ramanathapuram, and the same was dismissed on 06.03.2024.

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

Challenging the same, the appellant has preferred this Criminal appeal.

3. After serving notice, the defacto complainant appeared before

this Court and requested this Court to appoint a legal-aid-counsel. At his

request, Mr.V.Kannan, the learned counsel was appointed as Legal-aid-

counsel for assisting the Court on behalf of the third respondent/defacto

complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

allegations stated in the FIR is not correct and there was some dispute,

which has been exaggerated by the petitioner. The injured was also

discharged from the hospital. Further, he would submit that the learned trial

Judge ought to have considered that the bare perusal of the FIR, would

clearly disclose that only with mala fide intention, the complaint has been

lodged by the defacto complainant. The appellants were arrested and

remanded to judicial custody on 01.03.2024. Under the said circumstance,

he seeks bail to the appellants.

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

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing

for the State would submit that the investigation was not completed and

there was no previous antecedents to the appellants. The allegation that the

defacto complainant was kidnapped by the appellant is to be seriously

viewed and considering the seriousness of the offence, he seeks for the

dismissal of this appeal confirming the dismissal of bail order passed by the

Court below.

6. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant reiterated the

submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and

further submitted that still there is life threat to the defacto complainant and

hence, he seeks for dismissal of this appeal.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made on either

side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The defacto complainant's name is Samuel . Furhter, in the FIR

it is stated that “ehd; fpwp];jt giwah; rKjhaj;ijr; Nrh;e;jtd;.”

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

Therefore, this Court concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the applicability of the Act itself is doubtful. Apart from

this, now, the injured is discharged from the hospital. Further, the appellants

were arrested on 01.03.2024 and from that date onwards, they are in custody

in Central Prison, Madurai. They have no previous antecedents.

9. Considering the above circumstances and the period of

incarceration and the reasonable doubt over the applicability of the Act, the

discharge of the injured from the hospital and no plea of communal

tensions, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside

the order, dated 06.03.2024 made in Cr.M.P.No.332 of 2024 on the file of

the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases registered

Under SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989, Rramanathapuram.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order

dated 06.03.2024 made in Cr.M.P.No.332 of 2024 on the file of the learned

Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered under SC/ST

(PoA) Act 1989, Ramanathapuram is set aside. The appellants are ordered to

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

be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like

sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered

under SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989, Ramanathapuram, and on further conditions

that:

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

Impression in the surety bond and the Special Court for Trial of Cases

Registered under SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989, Ramanathapuram, may obtain a

copy of their valid identity card to ensure their identity.

(b) the appellants shall report before the second respondent Police

Station, daily at 10.30 am, until further orders.

(c) the appellants shall not indulge in tampering the evidence or

witnesses either during investigation or trial.

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

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

Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the

appellants in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed

and the appellants were released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial

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

Judge himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs.

State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].