The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's entitlement to statutory bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the specified period, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, to set aside the order dated 04.07.2022, passed in Cr.M.P.No.1103/2022, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur and pass an order to release the petitioner on bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., in connection with Crime NO.05 of 2021, on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.)

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 1103 of 2022, dated 04.07.2022, on the file of the Special Court for trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur dismissing the petition for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.,

2. The appellant is the sole accused in Cr.No.05 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 506(i) I.P.C., and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix/defacto complainant, who is the third respondent, belongs to Pallar Community and whereas the appellant/accused belongs to Veerakudi Vellalar Community, that the appellant is employed as a Constable in the Armed Reserve of Virudhunagar District, that the appellant got acquaintance with the prosecutrix through face book and the same developed into love affair, that the appellant by giving promise to marry her, moved closely with her and took her to his quarters at Virudhunagar and had sexual relationship with her, that when the victim asked the appellant to marry her, the appellant had allegedly threatened that if she discloses about their relationship to anyone, he would take police action against her and thereby he had sexual relationship on three occasions, that the prosecutrix got conceived and again asked the appellant to marry her, but the appellant refused and hence, a complaint was lodged and on that basis, F.I.R. came to be registered.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant earlier filed a regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in Cr.M.P.No.476 of 2022 and the learned Sessions Judge of Special Court for trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, vide order dated 26.04.2022 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the bail application, the accused invoking Section 14A(2) of SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Amendment Act 2015, has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.357 of 2022 for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2022 dismissing the bail application and to enlarge him on bail and that this Court, vide order dated 05.07.2022, dismissed the appeal.

5. It is not in dispute that in the meanwhile, the accused has filed another application in Cr.M.P.No.1103 of 2022 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., seeking statutory bail and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 04.07.2022 dismissed the said petition also. Challenging the said dismissal order, the accused has preferred the present appeal.

6. At the outset, this Court is constrained to observe that it is very much shocking to notice that the impugned order was passed, the way in which, the personal liberty of the accused was handled by the Judicial Officer, who has already put in 19 years of judicial service from the post of Judicial Magistrate to the present post of Sessions Judge, in complete violation of provisions of Cr.P.C., and legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reiterated by this Court.

7. The appellant in the application filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., has specifically averred that he was arrested on 02.04.2022, that though the police ought to have filed a charge sheet within 90 days from the date of arrest, they have not chosen to file charge sheet till the end of 30.06.2022, the day on which 90 days period got expired and that therefore, the accused is entitled to be released