Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Pathirakalimuthu @ Muthupandi – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Supreintendent of Police, Thoothukudi & Others – Respondents
Crl. A. (MD). No. 753 of 2023
Decided On : 15-09-2023
Criminal Appeal - Bail Application - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - 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
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and other accused were involved in a case involving various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant filed a petition for bail, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The appellant then filed a Criminal Appeal to set aside the order and grant bail.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the allegations and the period of incarceration of the appellant, and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, granting bail to the appellant with certain conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the seriousness of the charges and the possibility of threatening witnesses and absconding.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the lack of previous antecedents, the period of incarceration, and the likelihood of delay in trial due to the absence of a Presiding Officer in the Special Court. These factors influenced the decision to grant bail.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the order of the Sessions Judge was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.
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.726 of 2023 dated 02.08.2023, 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.726 of 2023 dated 02.08.2023, 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. 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.726 of 2023, before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, and the same was dismissed on 02.08.2023. 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 in Central Jail, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 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 w
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 period of incarceration and the absence of a presiding officer in the Special Court as factors in 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.
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 appellant's judicial custody, lack of previous similar offenses, and other circumstances in allowing the criminal appeal and granting bail.
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 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 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 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 nature of the allegations and the appellant's custody period in deciding to grant bail with conditions.
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
