Point of Law: Murder case – Grant of Bail - Merely because, the victim, through her counsel voices her strong suspicion that cannot dissuade this Court from granting bail to the appellants herein.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to set aside the order dated 30.04.2021 passed in Crl.MP.No.1384 of 2021 and Crl.MP.No.1385 of 2021 respectively, by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.3 of 2021, pending investigation on the file of the first respondent /police.)

1. The appellants in these appeals are figuring as A1 and A2 in Crime No.165 of 2021 originally registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruvenkadu Police Station. Nagapattinam.

2. Manonmani is the wife of the deceased Srinivasan. Srinivasan was found dead on 17.4.2021 in the brick kiln chambers of RKB chambers. The chamber is owned by Thiru Siddharthan and his mother Lalitha. The deceased Srinivasan was working in the brick chambers for more than 20 years.

3. The stand of the intervenor is that the deceased/Srinivasan was employed there for more than 27 years. Srinivasan left the employment of the chambers sometime back. He had joined another brick chambers known as SKP chambers. However, he had certain outstanding issues to be settled. According to Srinivasan, he had to be paid Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) towards gratuity and provident fund dues. According to the management of RKB chambers, only Rs.60,000/- was due.

4. In these circumstances, within the premises of RKB chambers, Srinivasan was found dead. Initially, Manonmani gave her complaint alleging that on 17.4.2021, at about 3:00 am, her husband received a call from RKB chambers, therefore he went to the premises of RKB chambers. At around 6:00 am. Manomani got a call that her husband passed away. When Manonmani and her relatives rushed to the spot, she found her husband hanging in a kneeling position. Manonmani alleged that her husband had been murdered by the management of RKB chambers. She wanted the owner as well as other accused to be arrested.

5. Based on her complaint, Crime No.165 of 2021 was registered by Thiruvenkadu Police Station under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. Later in the day, Manonmani gave an additional complaint. In her additional complaint, she mentioned that on 12.4.2021 at about 10:00 am, her husband Srinivasan met the owners of the chambers namely Suresh Chand and his son Sitharthan and demanded his settlement dues. Those two persons abused her husband by referring to his community. Manonmani had stated in her additional complaint that her husband felt heart broken by the occurrence. On 17.4.2021 at about 4:00 am, Mohan, working as Manager in RKB chambers, on his mobile, contacted her husband and asked him to come to RKB Chambers. Accepting the said invitation, Srinivasan had gone to RKB chambers for work. At around 6:00 am. she received information that her husband had died. Manonmani reiterated her allegations that Suresh Chand, his son Sitharthan, the Manager Mohan, and eight North Indian workers had joined together and beaten her husband to death. She had also alleged that in the very same chamber premises, earlier four other persons had died under mysterious circumstances.

6. Based on the additional complaint, an alteration report was prepared and few other provisions namely 306 and 352 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act were also added.

7. Both Sitharthan and his father Suresh Chand were arrested on 18.4.2021. The appellants herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1255 and 1256 of 2021 before the Special Court for bail. Vide common order dated 26.4.2021 the bail petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants herein renewed their bail petitions before the very same Special Court in Crl.MP.No.1384 of 2021 and Crl.MP.No.1385 of 2021. The second bail petitions were also dismissed by orders dated 30.4.2021. Questioning the same, these appeals have been filed.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Government Advo