Madras High Court
Nandhakumar vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 30 April, 2024
CRL.A(MD).No.372 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated:30.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A(MD)No.372 of 2024
1.Nandhakumar
2.Nareshkumar ... Appellants/Petitioners
/Accused No.1& 2
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kannivadi Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.84 of 2024) ... 2ndRespondent/Respondent/Complainant
3. Sanmugam ... 3rd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A) (2) of the Schedule
Castes and Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015 as Amended by Act 1
of 2016, praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Court
for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul, in
Cr.M.P.No.662 of 2024 dated 15.04.2024 in Crime No.84 of 2024 on the
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A(MD).No.372 of 2024
file of the second respondent Police and enlarge the Appellant on bail by
allowing the Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.J.William Christopher
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam,
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
for R1 & R2
: Mr.A.Mohamed Riyaz
for R3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed to set aside the impugned order passed in
Cr.M.P.No.662 of 2024 dated 15.04.2024 on the file of the learned Special
Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul, and
enlarge the appellant on bail.
2.The appellants are A1 and A2, in Crime No.84 of 2024 on the file
of the second respondent Police. They are said to have committed alleged
offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant is working
as a sweeper in Pandrimalai Panchayat and his wife is working as a
sweeper in Adalur Panchayat. His wife was not feeling well on 26.03.2024.
Therefore, in order to sweep the garbage in Adalur Village, he went to the
said village on behalf of his wife. While he was doing the cleaning work,
the appellants questioned the defacto complainant and the defacto
complainant stated that since his wife was not feeling well, he came and
doing cleaning work. At that time, the appellants were said to have abused
the defacto complainant using his caste name. The defacto complainant
informed the same to the father of the first appellant. Even after that once
again, on the same day, at 11.45 a.m., when the defacto complainant was
sitting in front of the Adalur Panchayat office, the appellants were said to
have abused the defacto complainant using filthy language and also
abusing his caste name. Hence, the defacto complainant gave a complaint
before the second respondent police and the second respondent Police
registered a case in Crime No.84 of 2024 , for the offence under Sections
294(b) and 506(i) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. The second respondent Police arrested the appellants on 30.03.2024.
Thereafter, the appellants filed the bail petition in Cr.M.P.No.662 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST
(POA) Act, Dindigul, and the same was dismissed by the impugned order
dated 15.04.2024. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed under
Section 14 A (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016.
4.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appellants are inside the jail from 30.03.2024. The defacto complainant
made a false allegation against them and hence, he seeks for bail.
5.The learner Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on instruction,
submitted that there was no previous antecedents and the act of the
appellants to abusing the defacto complainant, when he was discharging
the cleaning work is not condonable one. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of
the bail petition.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/defacto
complainant also reiterated the submission of the learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side) stating that there is threat to the life of the witnesses.
Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the bail petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.This Court considered the rival submission made on either side
and perused the records and also impugned order. This Court also perused
the FIR.
8.As per the FIR, the allegation is that the appellant abused the
defacto complainant by using his caste name and also committed criminal
intimidation.
9.Taking the account that the appellants are inside the jail for more
than 28 days and also the fact that the appellants have no previous
antecedents and no case of communal tension is pleaded by the
prosecution, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal.
10.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned
order dated 15.04.2024 made in Cr.M.P.No.662 of 2024 on the file of
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,
Dindigul, is set aside. The appellants are ordered to 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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,
Dindigul, 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 Exclusive Trial of
Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul, may obtain a copy of their valid
identity card to ensure their identity.
(b)the appellants are directed to appear before the second respondent
Police, daily at 10.30 am, until further orders.
(c) the appellants shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses during
trial.
(d) the appellants shall co-operate with the proceeding of Trial
Court.
(e) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Trial
Judge is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellants in
accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellants were released on bail by the learned Trial Judge himself as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala
[(2005) AIR SCW 5560].
(f) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered
under Section 229-A IPC.
30.04.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsg
Note:Issue order Copy on 30.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The learned Special Court
for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,
Dindigul.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kannivadi Police Station,
Dindigul District.
4. The Superintendent,
Sub Jail,
Dindigul.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
6. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
vsg
30.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
