Back
M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Akathiyadevan @ Agatthiyadevan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order dated 12.03.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Perambalur and to allow the Criminal Appeal.)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2024 dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Perambalur and enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Crime No.101 of 2024 on the file of the second respondent Police.
2. The appellants, who are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.101 of 2024 for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 355 and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were arrested by the respondent police on 05.03.2024. The appellants filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Perambalur in Crl.M.
The completion of investigation, filing of the charge sheet, and the requirement to complete the trial within a specified period under Section 14 of SC/ST Act influenced the court's decision to grant....
The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and proportionality in bail decisions, especially where allegations stem from civil disputes rather than genuine communal conflict.
Bail granted to accused lacking specific allegations in FIR, parity with co-accused, despite SC/ST atrocity charges.
The court considered the nature of the offence, the period of incarceration, and the fact that it was a case of counter in granting bail to the appellants.
The court affirms the seriousness of caste-based charges under the SC/ST (POA) Act, endorsing bail for some accused while denying it to the second due to severe allegations.
The court's decision was influenced by the absence of initial mention of caste-based insult and the circumstances of the case, which led to the grant of bail to the appellants.
The court established that anticipatory bail cannot be granted if prima facie evidence of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act exists against the appellants.
Bail may be granted if continued incarceration is not warranted based on evidence and circumstances.
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
