[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Surya @ Kasivu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 March, 2026

Author: B.Pugalendhi

Bench: B.Pugalendhi

                                                                                         Crl A(MD)No.114 of 2026


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 16.03.2026

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
                                            Crl A(MD)No.114 of 2026


                Surya @ Kasivu                                                        ... Appellant

                                                             Vs.
                1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                  Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                  Kamuthi Sub Division,
                  Ramanathapuram District.

                2.The State of Tamil Nadu
                  rep by the Inspector of Police,
                  Kamuthi Police Station,
                  Ramanathapuram District.
                  [in Crime No.37 of 2024]

                3.Thamaraiselvi                                                         ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and
                Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 as amended by Act 1 of
                2026, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in
                Cr.M.P.No.1005 of 20225 in SplSC.No.19 of 2024 on the file of the Special
                Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram dated
                28.11.2025 and set aside the same as illegal and enlarge the appellant on bail by
                allowing the criminal appeal.


                1/8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )
                                                                                            Crl A(MD)No.114 of 2026


                                           For Appellant           : Mr.K.Jeyamohan
                                                                              for Mr.R.Tamil Vanan
                                           For Respondent          : Mr.S.Prakash,
                                           Nos.1 and 2                        Government Advocate
                                           For Respondent           : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar Isaac Paul
                                           No.3

                                                              ORDER

The appellant is the 3rd accused in Crime No.37 of 2024 on the file of

the respondent police, which was registered for the offence punishable under

Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 376(D) and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(s), 3(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. He was arrested and

remanded to judicial custody on 03.02.2024. After investigation, final report

was filed as against this appellant and two others and it was taken on file in

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under

SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram. The appellant filed a bail application

before the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.1005 of 2025 and the same was dismissed

by order dated 28.11.2025. Challenging the same, this Criminal Appeal has

been filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )

2.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defacto

complainant / PW1 is a native of Nerinjipatti village of Kamuthi Taluk. She is

married and living separately with her parents. PW2 / PW1's sister's husband is

working as a Police Consatable in Sivagangai Town Police Station.

On 29.01.2024, PW1 is said to have travelled in a motor cycle from Kamuthi to

Aruppukottai for taking treatment in Jeyanthi Hospital at Aruppukottai. On her

way, PW1/defacto complainant has gone to the place of occurrence near

Idaichiyurani Vilakku for attending nature's call. At that time A1 and A2 along

with this appellant are said to have waylaid her, intimidated and committed rape

on her. On the complaint of PW1, a case was registered in Crime No.37 of 2024

on 31.01.2024. The appellant was also arrested and he is in jail from

03.02.2024. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, after completing

investigation, a final report was filed. Even as per the prosecution case, this

appellant had not committed any offence and he was present and assisted other

accused in the commission of offence.

3.The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the statement of

the Doctor and submits that though the victim has projected the case as a gang

rape, there was no injury on the victim. According to the learned counsel for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )

appellant, the victim was having illegal relationship with PW2, she has gone to

a remote place on the date of occurrence. A1 and A2 are said to have questioned

them and therefore, this case was foisted. He further submits that since PW2 is a

Police Constable, the respondent police registered the case in a mechanical

manner and also filed the final report as if the victim / PW1 was raped by this

appellant and by the other accused.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and the

learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submit that

on 29.01.2024 ,while the defacto complainant was on her way to hospital, she

went to the place of occurrence to attend nature's call and the accused persons

surrounded her, committed rape on her and robbed a sum of Rs.3,000/-.

Accused No.2 had also taken some videographs and photos, intimidated them

not to lodge a complaint. However a complaint was lodged on 31.01.2024, a

case was registered and after investigation final report was filed.

5.This court considered the rival submissions made and perused the

material placed on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )

6.PW1/ defacto complainant is a native of Nerinjipatti Village of

Kamuthi Taluk, which is 20 kms away from the place of occurrence. PW1 went

to the place of occurrence for attending nature's call on her way to hospital at

Aruppukottai. PW1 was accompanied by PW2, husband of PW1's sister. PW2

is admittedly a Police Constable. The appellant claims that PW2 is working as a

Police Constable in Sivagangai Town Police Station and the respondent claims

that PW2 is working in Armed Reserve. The fact remains that on a working day

PW2 went to the place of occurrence along with PW1. The respondent police

have not ascertained as to how PW2 accompanied PW1 to the place of

occurrence. Though the case is projected as a gang rape, according to the

Doctor's evidence, the victim / PW1 has not sustained any injury. This court has

also perused the statement of the Doctor, who examined the victim. The

prosecution has projected this as a case of gang rape, whereas PW2 a Police

Constable is said to have accompanied PW1 at the time of occurrence. However

the complaint has been lodged after two days. The appellant and other accused

are strangers to PW1 and PW2 and they may not be aware of the caste name of

the PW1 and PW2. However, the case has been registered for the offence under

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, also.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )

7.Considering the manner in which the investigation has been

conducted by the investigating officer, the period of incarceration and the

materials as against this appellant, this court is inclined to set aside the order

passed by the trial court. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned

order is set aside, with the following conditions:

(i) The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond

for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum,

to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases,

Ramanathapuram.

(ii) The appellant shall file an affidavit before the respondent police

that he will not misuse this liberty and will not indulge in any further offence.

(iii) The appellant shall stay at Villuppuram and report before the

Villuppuram Taluk Police Station daily at 10.30 am.

(iv) If the appellant violates any of the conditions, the respondent

police shall move an application to cancel the order granting bail to the

appellant.

16.03.2026

DSK

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi Sub Division, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram.

4.The Superintendent, District Prison, Ramanathapuram.

Copy To

1.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

2.The Station House Officer, Villuppuram Taluk Police Station, Villuppuram

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:24 pm )

B.PUGALENDHI, J.,