IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C is based on the expiry of the stipulated period for filing the charge sheet and the accused's willingness to furnish bail, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.430 & 431 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1973, Sivagangai dated 21.02.2024.)

1. These Criminal Appeals arise out of the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.430 & 431 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sivagangai dated 21.02.2024.

2. With the consent of both the learned counsels, these Criminal Appeals have been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

a) A complaint was raised by an Adi Dravidar Welfare Committee member in regard to misappropriation of funds allotted to the Adi-Dravidar Welfare Hostels and on the strength of the said complaint, the District Collector, Sivagangai formed a committee for inspection and on initial inspection, it was held that the appellants herein along with other accused had misappropriated a sum of Rs.9 lakhs in which, Rs.5 lakhs has been repaid by the first appellant and therefore, a case has been registered against them and the appellants herein were arrayed as accused No.1 and 2. During the course of inspection, it was found that the first appellant herein, who was working as a Senior Revenue Inspector in Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Sivagangai Division had abused her official capacity and misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,43,27,647/- and had only repaid Rs.5 Lakhs to the Government vide challan on 20.10.2023. On further investigation, it came to light that the first appellant and her husband/the second appellant herein along with other accused entered into criminal conspiracy to misappropriate the funds allocated to the Hostels run by the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department and have cheated the Government to the tune of Rs. 2,43,27,647/-. Hence, a case initially registered against the appellants herein along with other accused have been altered and registered under Sections 403, 409, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of IPC and 3(1)(q), 3(2)(vii) of SC/ST PoA Act, 1989. Against the same, the appellants herein filed a petition for statutory bail under Section 167(2), which was dismissed by the Court below.

b) Aggrieved over the same, the appellants herein have come forward before this Court with the present appeals.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.11.2023 for the alleged offences under Sections 403 and 420 @ 403, 409, 468, 471, 420 and 120(b) of IPC along with Sections 3(1) (q) and 3(2)(vii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 as the funds allotted for the welfare of the Adi-Dravidar students were misappropriated by them. He further submitted that the bail application filed by them were dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the investigation is still pending and if they were enlarged on bail, they will tamper the material evidence.

6. In furtherance of his arguments, he contended that the Court below ought to have considered the fact that the charge sheet has not been filed within the prescribed time limit. It also miserably failed to analyse and appreciate the scope of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The Court below erred in dismissing the statutory bail petitions by citing the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Crl.A.No.391 of 2024 dated 24.01.2024, which is not at all applicable to the facts of the case on hand. No charge sheet has been laid even beyond the statutory period. In view of the same, the appellants are mandatorily entitled to be released on statutory bail as contemplated under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the learned counsel prays for allowing the appeals.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during investigation, it was foun