Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Kamalesh – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi & Others – Respondents
A.(MD) No. 303 of 2023
Decided On : 28-04-2023
SC/ST Act - Bail - The court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order denying bail to the appellant under the SC/ST Act, considering the appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar offenses, and other circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of murdering an individual and abusing another, leading to the registration of a case under various sections including the SC/ST Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant, who belonged to the SC community, had been in judicial custody and did not have previous similar offenses. Therefore, the court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the appellant.
Issues: Dispute over vacating a cycle stand leading to murder and abuse, applicability of SC/ST Act, and grant of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar offenses, and other circumstances in allowing the criminal appeal and granting bail.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, and the order denying bail to the appellant under the SC/ST Act was set aside, granting bail to the appellant with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, to set aside the order dated 21.03.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2023 on the file of Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Thoothukudi and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.09 of 2023 on the file of the second respondent.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.252 of 2023 dated 21.03.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi (FAC).
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to some dispute with regard to vacating the cycle stand, on 05.01.2023 at about 02.00 a.m., the appellant along with other accused had murdered one Anandaraj and when the third respondent/defacto complainant tried to stop the accused, they had also abused her in filthy language and on that basis, FIR came to be registered against two persons including the appellant herein in Crime No.9 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 302, 294(b) and 506(2) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
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 the appellant belongs to SC community and hence SC/ST act cannot be attracted, that the appellant is in judicial custody from 06.01.2023 and that the second accused juvenile was already released on bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that charge sheet has already been filed before the concerned Court and the same is yet to be taken on file. He would further submit that the appellant is not having any previous cases.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has raised objections to grant bail to the appellant.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the facts that the appellant is in judicial custody from 06.01.2023 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 21.03.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.252 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi (FAC).
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.03.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.252 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi (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 Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi, 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 stay at Viluppuram and report before the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Viluppuram daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one month and thereafter 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 aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions Judge/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of
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 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's decision was influenced by the ongoing investigation and the likelihood of the appellant absconding and hampering the witnesses, leading to the dismissal of the bail appeal.
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 appellant's custody, the grant of bail to a similarly placed accused, and the stage of the trial in deciding to set aside the order granting bail.
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 nature of the allegations and the appellant's custody period in deciding to grant bail with conditions.
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 was based on the period of incarceration, the progress of the investigation, and the circumstances of the case.
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
