IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Perumal @ Ayyamperumal & Another – Appellants
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Edappadi, Salem & Others – Respondents
CRL. A. NO. 336 OF 2023
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Bail - Criminal Appeal - SC/ST Act - Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC r/w. Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a bail petition after being arrested for a wordy quarrel with the defacto complainant, who alleged that the first accused assaulted and abused him based on his caste. The bail petition was initially dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, but the appellants appealed for bail.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there were no serious injuries caused to the victim and considered the nature of the offence and the appellants' time in judicial custody, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants should be granted bail after being arrested for offences under the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and other sections of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the lack of serious injuries to the victim and the appellants' time in judicial custody as key factors in granting bail.
Final Decision: The impugned order dismissing the bail petition was set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC / ST Act, 1989, to set aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2023 and the same was dismissed on 16.03.2023 and enlarge the appellants on bail in Cr.No.71 of 2023 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Edappady Police Station, Edappady, Salem District.)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the dismissal of the bail petition preferred by them before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2023 dated 16.03.2023 and to enlarge them on bail.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC r/w. Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, upon a complaint given by the defacto complainant / third respondent herein, which was only a wordy quarrel. On 08.03.2023, when the defacto complainant talking with his friend at Bus Stand, the first accused came in a drunken manner, quarrelled with the defacto complainant''s friend by saying that the defacto complainant is hailing from Scheduled Caste. When it was questioned by the defacto complainant, he was assaulted by the accused and the accused abused him in filthy language mentioning his caste name. The appellants/accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.03.2023. Subsequently, the appellants filed a bail petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2023 and the same was dismissed 16.03.2023, without considering the fact that the occurrence is only a wordy quarrel and there is no serious injuries caused to the victim / defacto complainant. Therefore, the appellants seek to enlarge them on bail.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2 conceded that there was a wordy quarrel between the appellants and the defacto complainant and no serious injuries have been caused by the appellants to the victim / defacto complainant.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record.
5. Though notice has been served on the defacto complainant / third respondent and his name also printed in the cause list, none appears on behalf of the third respondent.
6. On perusal of the records and the FIR, the fact reveals that the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC r/w. Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, upon a complaint given by the defacto complainant. It is seen from the records that there was wordy quarrel between the appellants and the defacto complainant. On 08.03.2023, when the defacto complainant talking with his fried at Bus Stand, the first accused came in a drunken manner, quarrelled with the defacto complainant''s friend by saying that the defacto complainant hailing from Scheduled Caste. When it was questioned by the defacto complainant, he was assaulted by the accused and the accused also abused him in filthy language mentioning his caste name. The appellants/accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.03.2023. The appellants filed a bail petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2023 and the same was dismissed on 16.03.2023. There is no serious injuries caused to the victim / defacto complainant.
7. Considering the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the appellants and also considering the fact that the appellants are in judicial custody from 11.03.2023, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the accused / appellants.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.734 of 2023 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, is set aside and th
The court's decision was influenced by the absence of initial mention of caste-based insult and the circumstances of the case, which led to the grant of bail to the appellants.
The court asserted the importance of considering age and gender in bail decisions, emphasizing that the Trial Court's failure to do so constituted grounds for granting bail.
Bail granted in SC/ST atrocity case considering nature of offence and incarceration period.
The court considered the nature of the allegations and the appellant's custody period in deciding to grant bail with conditions.
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 court has the discretion to grant bail with specific conditions, taking into account the period of incarceration, the appellant's criminal history, and the complainant's apprehension.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.