The court considered the nature of the offence, the period of incarceration, and the fact that it was a case of counter in granting bail to the appellants.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016) praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1056 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and enlarge the appellants on bail in Crime No.59 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent police.

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016) praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1057 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and enlarge the appellants on bail in Crime No.59 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent police.)

Common Judgment

1. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 08.03.2022 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.933, 1056 & 1057 of 2022, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, the appellants who are all arrayed as accused in Crime No.59 of 2022 on the file of the Sulthanpettai Police Station, have preferred these criminal appeals praying to set aside the order dated 08.03.2022 and to enlarge them on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased. A4 is the milk vendor. During the relevant point of time, the deceased who is the husband of the defacto complainant, while at that time, dashed against a vehicle in inebriated mood, due to which the milk carried by A4 was was poured on the road. Thereafter, both of them returned to their respective houses. Later, all the accused joined together and went into the defacto complainant's house and after picking up quarrel with the defacto complainant, abused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and by referring her caste name. Further, they assaulted the defacto complainant's husband who was sleeping at that time. Further, other accused assaulted the deceased with wooden log. More than that, during the same occurrence, all the accused assaulted the defacto complainant's daughter in law also. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that for the same incident, a counter case has been registered based upon the complaint given by one, Marimuthu who is arrayed as accused No.1 in this case. As of now, investigation has been completed and further, the appellants are in judicial custody from 09.02.2022, 10.02.2022, 11.02.2022, 12.02.2022 and 13.02.2022 onwards. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and to release the accused on bail.

4. Notice under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act has been served to the defacto complainant, but none appeared on behalf of her.

5. Opposing to grant bail, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/Police submits that if these type of petitioners are released on bail, they may try to tamper the witness and hamper the investigation. According to him, being the reason that the alleged occurrence had happened due to communal rivalry, the prayer sought for by the appellants cannot be entertained. However he admits that as of now, portion of investigation has been completed.

6. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered.

7. The respondent police registered a case for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 427, 355, 307 of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015 @ Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 427, 355, 302 of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015. The appellants are in the judicial custody from 09.02.2022, 10.0