Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Hari @ Hariharan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai & Others – Respondents
A.(MD) No. 332 of 2023
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Bail - SC/ST (POA) Act - The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the order of the lower court, and granted bail to the appellant based on the circumstances that the appellant had no previous cases and the injured was already discharged from the hospital.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and other accused were alleged to have attacked the third respondent, scolded him using his caste name, threatened him, and snatched his cell phone and cash. A case was registered against them for various offenses including those under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the order of the lower court, and granted bail to the appellant based on the circumstances that the appellant had no previous cases and the injured was already discharged from the hospital.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of bail to the appellant who was accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the fact that the appellant had no previous cases and that the injured was already discharged from the hospital as grounds for granting bail.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the order of the lower court was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail with certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.644 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukkottai District, dated 05.04.2023 and set aside the same as illegal and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.85 of 2022 on the file of the respondent.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.644 of 2023 dated 05.04.2023 by the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.03.2023 at about 09.00 p.m., the appellant and the other accused had attacked the third respondent/defacto complainant, scolded him by using his caste name and threatened him with dire consequences and also snatched his cell phone and cash of Rs.5,100/- from him. Hence, the second respondent registered a case against four persons including the appellant herein in Crime No.85 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506(2) and 379 IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015.
3. The petitioner has filed a petition for bail in Cr.M.P.No.644 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai, on 05.04.2023. Challenging the dismissal order, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.
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 second accused was already granted bail by this Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.295 of 2023 and that the appellant is in judicial custody from 22.03.2023.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has raised objections to grant bail to the appellant.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that at the time of occurrence, the accused persons, who were in drunken mood, due to wordy quarrel, had attacked the third respondent and caused injuries. He would further submit that the injured was already discharged from the hospital and that the appellant is not having any previous cases.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the facts that the appellant is not having any previous cases and that the injured was already discharged from the hospital, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 05.04.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.644 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 05.04.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.644 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge (FAC), Special Court for trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai, is set aside. The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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, Pudukkottai 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 Special Court for trial of SC/ST Act Cases, Pudukkottai District, 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.
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 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 considered the nature of the allegations and the appellant's custody period in deciding to grant bail with conditions.
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 appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar offenses, and other circumstances in allowing the criminal appeal and granting bail.
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 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 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 has the discretion to grant bail, considering the circumstances of the case and the potential risks involved, and may impose specific conditions for the release of the accused.
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....
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
