Madras High Court
Vignesh vs State Rep. By Its on 27 September, 2024
Crl.A(MD)No.781 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.A(MD)No.781 of 2024
Vignesh
.... Appellant/Accused No.1
Vs.
State rep. by its:
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.170 of 2024)
... Respondents/Complainants
3.Saranya ... 3rd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act 1989, to call for the records and set
aside the bail dismissal order of the learned Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act
Cases), Ramanathapuram in Cr.M.P.No.1498 of 2024, dated 13.09.2024 in
Crime No.170 of 2024.
For appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesha Pandian
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R3 : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.A(MD)No.781 of 2024
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order of the
learned Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act Cases), Ramanathapuram in Cr.M.P.No.
1498 of 2024, dated 13.09.2024 in Crime No.170 of 2024.
2.The appellant, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody
on 09.09.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3) of BNS
2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 in Crime
No.170 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seek appeal bail.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the defacto
complainant, who is the wife of the appellant loved each other and married
without the consent of their parents. The family members of the appellant
used to abuse the defacto complainant, since she belongs to scheduled caste
community. Following which, the appellant, who is the husband of the
defacto complainant also abused and threatened her to go to her parents house
or else he and his family members will kill her. Based on the complaint given
by the defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.170 of 2024 has been registered
against the accused persons. This accused was arrested and remanded to
custody on 09.09.2024. Ever since, he is in custody. Seeking bail, he filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bail application before the trial Court and that came to be dismissed. Against
the above said order, this appeal has been preferred.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and the
learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that
the issue between the husband and wife. Based on the complaint given by the
wife, this case has been registered as against the appellant and other accused
persons. Seeking bail the petition filed before the Special Court came to be
dismissed on the ground that due to criminal intimidation made by the
accused persons, they are not entitled for bail.
6.In this regard, an affidavit has been filed by the appellant stating
that he and his family members will not make any trouble to the defacto
complainant.
7.Based on the affidavit filed by the appellant, nature of offence
committed by the appellant and also considering the period of incarceration,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Court is inclined to allow this petition and to grant bail to the appellant.
8.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order, dated
13.09.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.1498 of 2024 on the file of the learned
Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act Cases), Ramanathapuram, is set aside. The
appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties, each for a like
sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act Cases),
Ramanathapuram, and on further condition that:
[a] the appellant shall file an undertaking affidavit to the effect that
he will not make any trouble to the defacto complainant in future. Further he
must stay away from the place of occurrence. He shall stay at
Ramanathapuram for a period of one month;
[b] the appellant shall appear before the concerned court, daily at
10:30 a.m. until further orders;
[c] the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either
during investigation or trial;
[d] the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or
trial;
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bail by the Trial Court itself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
27.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PNM
Note: Issue order copy on 27.09.2024.
To
1.The Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act Cases), Ramanathapuram
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.170 of 2024)
4.The Superintendent, District Jail, Ramanathapuram
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
PNM
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
