BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
Esakkipandi - Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari & Ors. - Respondents
CRL. A (MD) . No. 1130 of 2023
Decided On : 10-01-2024
Criminal Appeal - Scheduled Castes and Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act - The court set aside the order denying bail to the appellant and ordered his release on bail with certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of scolding and abusing the complainant with reference to his caste, threatening him, and attacking him to withdraw a criminal case. The police registered a case against the appellant under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had been in judicial custody and that the co-accused had already been granted bail. Considering these facts, the court set aside the order denying bail and ordered the appellant's release on bail with specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail despite the allegations against him and the concerns raised by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellant's custody, the grant of bail to the co-accused, and the potential danger to the complainant. It balanced these factors and decided to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant with strict conditions.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the order denying bail was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Schedule Castes and Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015 (Amended by Act 1 of 2016), to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.5082 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli dated 21.12.2023 and set aside the same as illegal and enlarge the appellant on bail by allowing the appeal.)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to call for the records challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.5082 of 2023 dated 21.12.2023, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, who has been arrayed as accused No.2 along with other accused have scolded the third respondent/defacto complainant with filthy language and abused him with the name of his caste. The appellant along with the other accused has also threatened the complainant with dire consequences and attacked him to withdraw the criminal case filed against the appellant. Hence the complaint.
3. Pursuant to the complaint of the defacto complainant, the second respondent police has registered a case against the appellant and another under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(2) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860) read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act No.33 of 1989).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution and due to wordy quarrel, a false case has been foisted against him and the appellant is in judicial custody from 05.12.2023 and if the appellant is released on bail, he is ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused in this case has already been granted bail by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli by order dated 21.12.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.5063 of 2023 and he has produced the copy of the same before this Court and prayed for bail.
6. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the appellant was arrested on 05.12.2023. Thereafter, the appellant moved bail application before the II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.5082 of 2023 and the same was dismissed on 21.12.2023, on the ground that the appellant may tamper the witnesses and may again cause danger to the defacto complainant and thereby, objected to release the appellant on bail.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note that the co-accused has already been granted bail, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal, by setting aside the order dated 21.12.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.5082 of 2023 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.12.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.5082 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, is set aside. However, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
[a] The appellant shall execute 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 learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli;
[b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
[c] The petitioner shall appear and sign before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, on the first working day of every English calender month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;
[d] In case,
Point of law :Grant of Bail - appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the same has not been considered properly and the appellant is in custody
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 nature of the allegation, the discharge of the victim from the hospital, and the working relationship between the petitioner and the complainant in 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 court exercises its discretion to grant bail to accused individuals under the SC/ST Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita based on the duration of pre-trial incarceration and the imposition of strict c....
Bail granted to accused lacking specific allegations in FIR, parity with co-accused, despite SC/ST atrocity charges.
The court considered the circumstances and absence of injuries in the case as key factors in allowing the criminal appeal and granting bail to the appellant.
The court emphasizes that in cases involving serious charges, while considering bail, the period of pre-trial incarceration and the necessity for further detention are primary factors to be balanced ....
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.