SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 872

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Sudalaikannu - Appellant
Versus
The State represented by its The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. A. (MD) No. 250 of 2023
Decided On : 13-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :N. Pragalathan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Sivakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), R3, No appearance.

The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the appellant's custody and non-appearance for a hearing, in granting bail.

Headnote:

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Bail - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was accused of pulling down the complainant and abusing her based on her caste. The case involved multiple charges including offenses under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the appellant's previous cases, non-appearance for a hearing, and subsequent arrest. It set aside the lower court's order and granted bail to the appellant.

Issues: Bail, Non-appearance for hearing, Previous criminal record

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's custody, non-appearance for a hearing, and the fact that a non-bailable warrant was ordered for the first time in the case.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the lower court's order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail with specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, to call for the entire records relating to the order dated 10.03.2023 passed in Cr.M.P.No.211 of 2023 in S.C.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi and set aside the same as arbitrary and consequently to release the petitioner on bail in connection with case in Crime No.52 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent police.)

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.211 of 2023 dated 10.03.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi (FAC).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.03.2022 at about 11.00 a.m., the appellant/sole accused had pulled down the third respondent/defacto complainant and abused her by using filthy language and her caste name. Hence, the second respondent registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.52 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, subsequently the case was altered into Sections 294(b), 354(A) and 506(1) IPC, Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Sections 3(l)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, due to the ill-health of the third respondent, she sent a letter to this Court through the Sub Inspector of Police, Seithunganallur Police Station, wherein, she has raised objections to grant bail to the appellant and also expressed her inability to attend this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the appellant was already released on bail by the lower Court on 10.05.2022 and then due to ill-health, the appellant did not appear for the hearing on 07.07.2022 and hence, Nonbailable Warrant was ordered to be issued.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that since the appellant has not turned up for the hearing on 07.07.2022, Non-Bailable Warrant was ordered to be issued and that the appellant was arrested on 06.01.2023 and was remanded to judicial custody. He would further submit that the appellant is having 7 previous cases, in which, 3 cases for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC and 2 cases for the offence under Section 379 IPC.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the fact that the appellant is in custody from 06.01.2023 and also taking note of the fact that Non-Bailable Warrant was ordered to be issued for the first time in the above case, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 10.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi (FAC).

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 10.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi (FAC), is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi, 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 appellant shall appear before the trial Court on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

    [c] t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top