Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Sathiya Raj - Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by its The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. A. (MD)No. 253 of 2023
Decided On : 06-04-2023
SC/ST (POA) Act - Bail - The court allowed the Criminal Appeal and set aside the order for the appellant to be released on bail, considering the appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar or serious offenses, and the absence of serious injuries in the incident.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and other accused were charged with attacking the complainant with deadly weapons, using caste-based abuse, and making threats. The case was registered for various offenses under the SC/ST (Amendment 2015) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar or serious offenses, and the absence of serious injuries in the incident warranted setting aside the order and releasing the appellant on bail.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's innocence, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the nature of the incident as a communal rivalry or a dispute between youngsters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar or serious offenses, and the absence of serious injuries in the incident.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the order for the appellant to be released on bail was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989 as amended by Act 1/2016, to call for the entire records in relating to the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.342 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 Ramanathapuram and to set aside the same and consequently to release the appellant on bail in connection with the FIR in Crime No.49 of 2023 on the file of the second respondent police.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.342 of 2023 dated 20.03.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram (FAC).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2023, the appellant along with the other accused had attacked the third respondent/defacto complainant with deadly weapons and abused him by using his caste name and also threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the third respondent registered a case against three named persons including the appellant and 7 unnamed persons in Crime No.49 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC r/w Sections 3(l)(r) and 3(l)(s) of SC/ST (Amendment 2015) Act.
3. 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 it is not the case of the communal rivalry, but only between youngsters.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been stated that investigation is not yet completed and the same is in initial stage and hence, the custodial interrogation of the appellant is very much required.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there are totally 6 accused, out of, the accused 2, 5 and 6 are the juveniles and the accused 3 and 4, in pursuance of the direction of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5215 and 5222 of 2023 dated 20.03.2023, have surrendered before the concerned Court and were released on bail. He would further submit that the appellant is not having any previous cases for the similar offence or for any other serious offence and that no one was injured seriously in the incident.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the facts that the appellant is in judicial custody from 09.03.2023 and that the appellant is not having any previous cases for similar offence or serious offence, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 20.03.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.342 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram (FAC).
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated 20.03.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.342 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram (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 learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram, 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 respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the appellant shall co-operate with the investigation.
[e] On breach of any of
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 was based on the period of incarceration, the progress of the investigation, and the circumstances of the case.
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 considered the circumstances of the case and the appellant's lack of previous cases in deciding to grant bail under the SC/ST(POA) Act.
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 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 has the discretion to grant bail based on the circumstances and duration of custody.
The court considered the appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar offenses, and other circumstances in allowing the criminal appeal and granting bail.
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
