Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Achu @ Aswathraman & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theni & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. A. (MD) No. 247 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2023
SC/ST Act - Bail - The court allowed the criminal appeal for appellants 2 to 5, setting aside the order of the trial court and ordering their release on bail, but dismissed the appeal for the first appellant due to his bad antecedents.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were accused of attacking and robbing the complainant's son. The case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants 2 to 5, who were in custody, did not have previous cases and allowed their appeal for bail. However, due to the bad antecedents of the first appellant, the court dismissed his appeal for bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants should be granted bail considering the allegations against them and their previous records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellants' custody, lack of previous cases for appellants 2 to 5, and the bad antecedents of the first appellant in reaching its decision on bail.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was partly allowed for appellants 2 to 5, setting aside the trial court's order and ordering their release on bail. The appeal was dismissed for the first appellant.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Schedule Castes and Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015 as Amended by Act 1 of 2016, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.377 of 2023 dated 14.03.2023 on the file of the learned Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under SC/ST Act (POA Act), Theni District and set aisde the same as illegal and enlarge the appellants on bail by allowing the appeal.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.377 of 2023 dated 14.03.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Theni.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.01.2023 at about 11.00 p.m., the appellants along with the other accused had attacked the fourth respondent/defacto complainant''s son and snatched gold chain and money from him. Hence, the second respondent registered a case against four named persons and five unnamed persons in Crime No.4 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 324 and 379 IPC. Subsequently, the case was altered into Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 147 IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, that due to previous motive in fishing rights, the third respondent has lodged the above false complaint and that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the first appellant is having two previous cases in Crime Nos.146 of 2017 and 447 of 2021 on the file of the second respondent for the similar offence and that the other appellants are not having any previous cases.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 has filed a counter statement, wherein, it has been stated that CCTV footage has clearly revealed that all the accused persons had attacked the fourth respondent and caused severe injuries on him and that if the appellants are released on bail, they will definitely tamper the evidence and witnesses and hence, she has raised objections to grant bail to the appellants.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the facts that the appellants 2 to 5 are in custody from 09.03.2023 and that the appellants 2 to 5 are not having any previous cases, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal as against the appellants 2 to 5. However, considering the bad antecedents of the first appellant, this Court is not inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal as against the first appellant.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the order, dated 14.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.377 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Theni, is set aside as against the appellants 2 to 5. The appellants 2 to 5 are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST Act (POA Act), Theni District and on further conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Sessions Judge may obtain a copy of their valid identity card to ensure their identity.
[b] the appellants 2 to 5 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the appellants 2 to 5 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the appellants 2 to 5 shall co-operate with the investigation.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions Judge/Trial Court
The court considered the absence of previous cases and the discharge of the injured from the hospital as grounds for granting bail to the appellant.
The decision to grant bail was based on the appellants' custody period, lack of previous similar or serious offences, and objections raised to granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the appellant's custody, previous cases, and specific allegations in determining eligibility for bail in a case involving the ....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the period of incarceration, the progress of the investigation, and the circumstances of the case.
The court considered the period of incarceration and the absence of a presiding officer in the Special Court as factors in granting bail to the appellant.
The court considered the appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar or serious offenses, and the absence of serious injuries in the incident as grounds for allowing the Criminal Appeal an....
The court's decision to grant bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act was influenced by the circumstances of the case, including the previous enmity between the parties and the discharge of the injured.
The court has the discretion to grant bail, considering the circumstances of the case and the potential risks involved, and may impose specific conditions for the release of the accused.
The court considered the nature of the allegations and the appellant's custody period in deciding to grant bail with conditions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
