Back
K. MURALI SHANKAR
Dhineshkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by its, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, to call for the records relating to the order in Cr.M.P.No. 641 of 2023 before the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for Trial of SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai and the same was dismissed on 05.04.2023 and set aside the same.)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.641 of 2023, dated 05.04.2023, on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for Trial of SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai, and enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Crime No.85 of 2023, on the file of the second respondent Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant and the defacto complainant, due to which, the appellant and other accused attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. A case in Crime No.85 of 2023 was registered by the second respondent Police against the appellant and other accused persons, under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(ii), 379 IPC and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SC/ST(PO
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 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's decision to grant bail was based on the period of incarceration, the progress of the investigation, and the circumstances of the case.
The main legal point established is that the decision to grant bail in cases involving serious charges and potential witness tampering or absconding should consider factors such as the accused's ante....
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 has the discretion to grant bail after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the charges against the appellant.
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 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 court considered the nature of the allegations and the appellant's custody period in deciding to grant bail with conditions.
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
