Madras High Court

Aswathi Devi vs The State Rep. By on 12 November, 2025

Author: T.V.Thamilselvi

Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       Dated : 12.11.2025

                                                               Coram:

                                      The Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                    Crl.A.No.1661 of 2025

                     Aswathi Devi
                                                                                            ...Appellant
                                                                Versus
                     1.The State rep. by
                       The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Udumalpet Sub Division,
                       Tiruppur District.

                     2.Inspector of Police,
                       Gudimangalam Police Station,
                       Tiruppur District.
                       (In Crime No.274/2025)

                     3.Mayilsamy
                                                                                          ...Respondents
                                  This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST
                     (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 praying to call for the
                     records pertaining to the order passed by the learned Special Court for Trial
                     of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur in C.M.P.No.121 of 2025 dated
                     14.10.2025 and to set aside the same and to enlarge the appellant on bail in
                     Crime No.274 of 2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent.



                     1/10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 08:28:50 pm )
                                  For Appellant                        :         Mr.Ilamvaludhi
                                                                                 for Mr.R.Babu

                                  For Respondents – 1 & 2              :         Mr.V.Meganathan,
                                                                                 Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                  For Respondent – 3                   :         Mr.B.Mohan


                                                             JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused seeking

to set aside the Order dated 14.10.2025 in C.M.P.No.121 of 2025 in Crime

No.274 of 2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for

Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur and to enlarge her on bail

in Crime No.274 of 2025 on the file of 2nd respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that 3rd respondent/de-facto

complainant had preferred a complaint to the respondent Police alleging that

appellant/accused used a filthy language about the caste of 3rd

respondent/de-facto complainant and slapped the 3rd respondent/de-facto

complainant in front of his wife and also, threatened the family members of

3rd respondent/de-facto complainant for involving the 3rd respondent/de-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 08:28:50 pm ) facto complainant in the political activities in the surrounding region.

Based on the complaint given by 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant,

respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.274 of 2025 against the

appellant/accused.

3. The learned counsel for appellant/accused submitted that 3rd

respondent/de-facto complainant was working as a labourer in the house of

Mr.Ranganatha Gounder (Accused No.1 in Crime No.274 of 2025) and

appellant/accused is the wife of said Ranganatha Gounder. The 3rd

respondent/de-facto complainant was regularly absent for work without any

intimation. When appellant/accused and her husband (Accused No.1 in

Crime No.274 of 2025) sought explanation for the absence of 3rd

respondent/de-facto complainant, 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant had

lodged a false complaint to respondent Police stating that appellant/accused

used a filthy language about the caste of 3rd respondent/de-facto

complainant and assaulted the 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant, due to

which, 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant had sustained fracture in his

right hand.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 08:28:50 pm ) 3.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for

appellant/accused that appellant/accused has not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case.

This is a clear case where the beneficial provision of SC & ST Act has been

misused for settling village quarrel.

3.2. The learned counsel for appellant/accused submitted that

appellant/accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

03.10.2025. The appellant/accused is ready to abide any condition to be

imposed by this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that this

Criminal Appeal may be allowed and appellant/accused may be enlarged on

bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf

of respondents 1 & 2 submitted that investigation of the case is almost

completed. He further submitted that he has strong objection for granting

bail to appellant/accused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 08:28:50 pm )

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of 3 rd respondent/de-facto

complainant submitted that appellant/accused has been in judicial custody

for 40 days.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

7. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that appellant/accused

is the wife of Ranganatha Gounder (Accused No.1 in Crime No.274 of

2025) and 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant was working as a labourer in

the house of Accused No.1. According to the prosecution, 3rd

respondent/de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint stating that

appellant/accused used a filthy language about the caste of 3rd

respondent/de-facto complainant and assaulted the 3rd respondent/de-facto

complainant and also, threatened the family members of 3rd respondent/de-

facto complainant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 08:28:50 pm )

8. The contention of appellant/accused is that 3rd respondent/de-facto

complainant had lodged a false complaint against appellant/accused and

based on the complaint of 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant, respondent

Police arrested the appellant/accused and kept her in judicial custody.

9. The appellant/accused has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.121 of

2025 before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act,

Tiruppur seeking bail. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court

for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur vide Order dated

14.10.2025, dismissed the said bail petition. Hence, the aggrieved

appellant/accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

10. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the

period of incarceration undergone by appellant/accused from the date of her

arrest i.e., 03.10.2025, this Court is inclined to set aside the Order dated

14.10.2025 in C.M.P.No.121 of 2025 in Crime No.274 of 2025 and allow

this Criminal Appeal by granting bail to appellant/accused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 08:28:50 pm )

11. Accordingly, Order dated 14.10.2025 in C.M.P.No.121 of 2025

in Crime No.274 of 2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special

Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur is set aside and

this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant/accused is ordered to be

released on bail subject to the condition that she shall execute a bond for a

sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for

a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for

Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur and on further conditions

that:

(a) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bonds and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar Card or Bank Pass Book and their mobile numbers to ensure their identity;

(b) The appellant/accused shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), after deducting the amount which was already deposited by the appellant/accused, if any, to the credit of Crime No.274 of 2025, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, this order shall stand automatically cancelled.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 08:28:50 pm )

(c) On such deposit being made, 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant shall withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant/accused in Crime No.274 of 2025, on proper identification, in the manner known to law.

(d) The appellant/accused shall report before the 2nd respondent Police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of eight weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

(e) The appellant/accused shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

(f) The appellant/accused shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

(g) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against appellant/accused, in accordance with law, as if the conditions have been imposed and appellant/accused 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.