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.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14 A (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016, to call for the records relating to the order in Cr.M.P.No.722 of 2023 dated 31.07.2023, on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases Registered Under SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, Thoothukudi and set aside the same and grant bail to the appellant by allowing this Criminal Appeal.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P.No.722 of 2023 dated 31.07.2023, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi, and enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Crime No.618 of 2022, on the file of the second respondent police.

2.1. According to the prosecution, the appellant and the other accused said to have committed the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307, 302, 506(ii), 109, 120(b) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act 2015.

2.2. According to the prosecution, before the date and time of occurrence, the deceased parties said to have torn the flex board installed by the petitioner''s community leader and the same was questioned by the appellant and other accused. In result, on 13.11.2022 at about 04.30 pm., the appellant/accused along with the other accused assembled unlawfully and used filthy language towards the defacto complainant''s son and her deceased husband and murdered the deceased, who belongs to Scheduled Caste by calling their caste name. During the course of the said quarrel, the accused along with other accused wrongfully restrained the son of the deceased and also attempted to murder him. Hence, the second respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.618 of 2022 against the appellant and the other accused persons, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 307, 302, 506(ii), 109, 120(b) of IPC, Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act. Hence, the petitioner has filed a petition for bail in Cr.M.P.No.722 of 2023, before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, and the same was dismissed on 31.07.2023. Challenging the same, the appellant has preferred this Criminal appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the the appellant did not involve in any occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. The appellant neither participated in the occurrence nor related to the main accused as alleged by the prosecution. Further, he is the permanent resident and there will not be any chance to abscond and he will not tamper the prosecution witnesses, if he comes out on bail. Further he would submit that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered that when bare perusal of the FIR, it would clearly disclose that on mala fide intention only, the complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody from 14.11.2022. Under the said circumstance, he seeks bail to the appellant.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that if the appellant/accused No.2 is released on bail, he will indulge in such offences and there is a chance of threatening the witnesses; there is also a possibility of absconding without appearing for trial and the appellant has the intention of committing offences continuously with his friends. Further, he would submit that the defacto complainant and her son are living under threat and there is every possibility of tampering of the witnesses and considering the seriousness of the offence, he seeks for the dismissal of this appeal with confirmation of the order passed by the Court below.

5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant reiterated the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and further submitted that there is life threat to the witnesses and hence, she seeks dismi