Suresh vs State Represented By Its
2025 Latest Caselaw 1421 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1421 Mad
Judgement Date : 2 January, 2025

Madras High Court

Suresh vs State Represented By Its on 2 January, 2025

                                                                                      Crl.A.No.1552 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 02.01.2025

                                                       CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                Crl.A.No.1552 of 2024

                     1.Suresh
                     2.Veerasamy
                     3.Sathyamoorthy                        ...               Appellants /Accused

                                                          Vs.

                     1.State represented by its
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Arakkonam Taluk Police Station,
                     Arakkonam,
                     Ranipet District.

                     2.Karthik                              ...                          Respondents

                     Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes
                     and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to set
                     aside the order dated 20.11.2024 in Crl.MP No.1227 of 2024 on the file of
                     the Special court of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
                     Atrocities) Act, Vellore, Vellore District and enlarge the appellant on bail in
                     Crime No.360 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police.




                     Page No.1 of 8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         Crl.A.No.1552 of 2024




                                        For Appellant             : Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan
                                                                    for Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar

                                        For 1st Respondent        :   Dr.C.E.Pratap,
                                                                      Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

                                        For 2nd Respondent        :   Mr.B.M.Subash
                                                                      for Mr.B.Mohan

                                                        JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellants' bail application

filed before the Special Court for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Vellore.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.11.2024 at about

10.30 p.m., while the defacto complainant was travelling alongwith his

family members in a car bearing Regn.No.TN-11A 2094, the appellants

drove their car in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and

caused damage to the defacto complainant's car; that a wordy quarrel ensued

pursuant to the said incident and thereafter the appellants are said to have

attacked the defacto complainant's father, who died in the hospital on the

same day.

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

3.The appellants were arrested on 09.11.2024 and remanded to

custody on the same day. They filed bail application before the trial court

and the same was dismissed on the ground that their release would lead to

law and order problem in the locality and that they would hamper the

investigation and threaten the witnesses, if they are released on bail.

4.Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants would submit that post-mortem certificate of the victim would

suggest that the victim died due to heart attack; that the allegations in the

first FIR would reveal that there was a scuffle and that the appellants cannot

be treated as aggressors; that the appellants are now in custody from

09.11.2024; and that their further custody is not required for the purpose of

investigation and prayed for bail.

5.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant, per contra

submitted that the appellants have humiliated the defacto complainant

mainly due to their caste and if they are released on bail, there is every

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

likelyhood of commotion in the locality; that the appellants are likely to

threaten the witnesses and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the

respondent, on instructions, would submit that there is likely to be a

problem in the village because of the caste dispute and hence sought for

dismissal of the appeal. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)

further submitted that the investigation is almost completed.

7. Considering the fact that the investigation has almost been

completed; that the appellants are in custody from 09.11.2024 and their

further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation, this court is

inclined to grant bail to the appellants. However, considering the

apprehension expressed by the defacto complainant and the learned

Government Advocate (crl.side) that the release of the appellants would

cause commotion in the locality, this court is of the view that the appellants

can be directed to stay at Kancheepuram and report before the Inspector of

Police, Kancheepuram Town Police Station, Kancheepuram at 10.30 a.m.

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

every day, until further orders. It is needless to say that if the appellants

threaten the witnesses, it is open to the defacto complainant / witnesses to

take appropriate action.

8. Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be released on bail

subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Vellore ;

(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(iii)the appellants shall stay at Kancheepuram and report before the Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram Town Police Station, Kancheepuram at 10.30 a.m. every day, until further orders.

(iv)the respondent police is directed to ensure that there is no threat to the life and safety of the de-facto complainant. In the event of any threat, appropriate steps to be taken.

(v) the appellants shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

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

(vi)the appellants shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(vii)the appellants shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(viii) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 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];

(ix)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 made

in Crl.MP No.1227 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court

for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Vellore is set aside and the

Criminal Appeal is allowed.

02.01.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rgr

Note : Issue order copy by 03.01.2025 Upload the order copy forthwith.

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

1.The Sessions Judge, Special court for SC/ST Act, Vellore District

2.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Taluk Police Station, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.