Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Dhineshkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by its, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai & Others – Respondents
CRL. A (MD). No. 295 of 2023
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Criminal Appeal - Bail under SC/ST(POA) Act - The court allowed the Criminal Appeal, set aside the order denying bail, and directed the appellant to deposit a sum and execute a bond with sureties to be released on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Criminal Appeal to set aside the order denying bail in connection with a case where he and other accused persons attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the discharge of the injured from the hospital and the appellant's lack of previous cases, and allowed the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order denying bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail in connection with the case under SC/ST(POA) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the discharge of the injured from the hospital and the appellant's lack of previous cases, and decided to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order denying bail.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the order denying bail was set aside, and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum and execute a bond with sureties to be released on bail.
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(POA)Act. He has filed a petition for bail in Cr.M.P.No.641 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukkottai, on 05.04.2023. Challenging the same, the appellant has preferred this Criminal appeal.
3. The learned counsel 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 is in judicial custody from 22.03.2023.
4. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/third respondent has raised objections to grant bail to the appellant.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that at the time of occurrence the accused persons, who were in drunken mood, due to wordy quarrel, the appellant along with other accused attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries. He would further submit that the injured was discharged from the hospital and that the appellant is not having any previous case. He would further submit that the appellant is in judicial custody from 22.03.2023.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the facts that the injured was discharged from the hospital and that the appellant is not having any previous case, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 05.04.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.641 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for Trial of SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 05.04.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.641 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for Trial of SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai, is set aside. The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the credit of Crime No.85 of 2023 before the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for Trial of SC/ST(POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai, and on such deposit, 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 Special Judge (FAC), Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukottai District, and on further conditions that:
(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukottai, may obtain a copy of their valid identity card to ensure their identity.
(b) the appellant shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 am, until further orders.
(c) the appellant shall not tamper with
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
