Bail Granted in SC/ST Act Case Citing Investigation Progress & Child's Welfare: Madras High Court

Chennai: In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has granted bail to two individuals accused in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). Justice M. Nirmal Kumar set aside the earlier order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, which had denied bail to the appellants.

The case, registered as Crime No. 15 of 2024 at Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai, involves allegations against the appellants (A1 and A2) under Sections 294(b), 324, 325, and 506(i) of the IPC, read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants were arrested on January 25, 2024. Appellant A2 is reportedly the son of a sitting MLA, a factor the appellants' counsel argued led to the case being politicized and attracting adverse media attention.

Case Background and Arguments

The de-facto complainant (3rd respondent), a domestic helper employed by the appellants, alleged ill-treatment, assault (including in a public place), forced choice of study, and confinement. The victim's counsel also raised concerns that offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO) and the Bonded Labour Act, 1976, could be applicable, as the victim was a minor for a period while employed.

Appearing for the appellants, the Senior Counsel contended that the victim was treated well and like family, presenting photographs of a birthday celebration as evidence. They also presented an alibi for the date of the alleged public assault, stating the appellants were in Salem while the victim was with her parents. It was argued that the SC/ST Act sections require an offence to occur in public view, which was initially disputed by the appellants' side.

The counsel for the de-facto complainant strongly refuted these claims, detailing broken promises regarding the victim's education (Microbiology vs. forced BBA) and remuneration (promised ₹2 lakhs + ₹60,000/month vs. received ₹16,000). Serious allegations were made regarding the investigation, including the rank and experience of the Investigating Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Police), alleged violation of Rule 7(1) of the SC/ST Rules (mandating an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police), and the failure to collect crucial evidence like 29 videos purportedly showing the victim's treatment. It was asserted that the assault did occur in a public place (Thiruvanmiyur bus stand). Concerns were also raised about the police objecting to the return of the victim's original educational certificates.

The Government Advocate, representing the police, defended the investigation, stating it was proceeding properly and the nominated officer was competent. They indicated the objection to returning certificates was only for the limited purpose of investigation and offered to return originals upon submission of attested photocopies with an undertaking. Bail was opposed on the grounds that it could hamper the ongoing investigation.

Court's Decision and Reasoning

Upon considering the submissions and reviewing the case records, the High Court observed that a "substantial portion of investigation" had been conducted. The victim and her mother had been examined, and the victim's statement had been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The police had also examined witnesses, including doctors, and initiated the process for monetary relief to the victim.

The Court noted that the appellants have a four-year-old daughter who is currently without parental care. While the judgment does not delve deeply into the conflicting claims or the technical objections regarding the investigation officer's rank for the purpose of the bail application, the court appeared satisfied that the investigation had progressed to a stage where the release of the appellants on stringent conditions would not necessarily impede further investigation or trial.

Setting aside the lower court's order, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar granted bail to the appellants subject to several conditions, including:

• Executing a bond for ₹10,000 each with two sureties.
• Sureties providing identification details (photographs, LTI, Aadhar/Bank passbook).
• Appearing before the police daily for two weeks, and thereafter as required.
• Not causing inconvenience or trouble to the de-facto complainant, failing which bail would be cancelled.
• Not committing similar offences.
• Not absconding or tampering with evidence/witnesses.

The judgment also cited the Supreme Court ruling in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala regarding the trial court's power to take action on breach of conditions and mentioned the possibility of registering a fresh FIR under Section 229A IPC if the accused absconds.

The order allows the criminal appeal, granting the appellants conditional liberty while the investigation continues.