JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, to allow the Criminal Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Special Court for Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.No.986/2021 dated 03.12.2021 and enlarge the Appellant on bail in Crime No.29 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.

1. This Criminal appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.986 of 2021 by order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Special Court for the cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Suganya, aged 25 years is the resident of Kottaiyur village, Tiruvannamalai District. She had completed B.Sc. (Maths) and she was working at Sathish Pawn shop at Kungili Natham village and she got acquainted with the accused Raman, who used to come to that shop. During December 2018, the said Raman had informed her that he was in love with her and initially, she had refused it. Since he had persisted her to love him, she also loved him. She further alleged that when the said Raman called her to his family deity, she had accompanied him. In the temple, the said Raman had promised her that he would definitely marry her. She had immediately asked him saying that he belongs to kurumba community and she belongs to irular community, whether his family members would accept her for the marriage. At that time, the said Raman had promised her in front of the deity stating that he would marry her. While so, on 20.09.2020, Raman had invited her to discuss about the future and called her to come to the hut near her house at 09.00 p.m. and she had gone there. He had reaffirmed his promise and thereafter, had intercourse with her repeatedly in the same night. Thereafter on 27.09.2020, in the presence of her relatives, he had confirmed his promise that he would marry her and subsequently, he had intercourse with her on several occasions. Thereafter, on 06.04.2021, he had taken her to hut near her house and had intercourse with her, due to which, she got pregnant during the month of May. When the defacto complainant had informed about her pregnancy, he told that only if she aborted her pregnancy, he would marry her otherwise he would marry his elder sister’s daughter. Thereafter, she had taken tablets and her pregnancy was aborted. Subsequently, on 10.09.2021, the defacto complainant was invited to attend the wedding reception of Raman’s younger brother, during that time, she came to know that he was going to marry his elder sister’s daughter and when she enquired about it, Raman informed that since both of them belongs to different community, he would marry her elder sister’s daughter. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.29 of 2021 was registered by the respondent against the appellant for the offences under sections 417 and 312 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 on 25.10.2021. The appellant was arrested on 26.10.2021 and remanded to the judicial custody on the same day. Thereafter, the appellant filed Crl.M.P.No.986 of 2021 on the file of Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act), Tiruvannamalai and the trial Court taking into consideration the gravity of offence and also taking into consideration that it is offence against women and society, had dismissed the same against which the present appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is a case of love affair and consensual relationship between the parties. The appellant and the defacto complainant were having relationship from the year 2018 and both of them were having good relationship. Since it was objected to by the parents of the appellant, they were unable to get married. He would further submit