Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2325
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. Ugalendhi, J.
Vallarasu - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors. - Respondents
Crl.A(MD)No.417 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Senthil Kumar
For the Respondent:Mr. A.S. Abul Kalam Asad, Government Advocate, Party in person
The absence of specific overt acts against the appellant justified the granting of bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act, subject to conditions to prevent further offences.
Headnote:
(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 14A(2) - Bail application - Appellant arrested on 13.02.2025, challenged the dismissal of bail by the trial court - Court noted absence of specific overt act against the appellant, allowing bail with conditions - Communal tension cited as a concern. (Paras 1, 8, 9)
(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The appellant must execute a bond, provide identity proof, report to police, and refrain from further offences or visiting the occurrence site. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, arrested in connection with a case involving communal tension, was accused alongside others of attacking a victim based on caste. The victim's mother lodged a complaint leading to the appellant's arrest. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no specific overt act against the appellant, allowing bail while imposing conditions to ensure compliance and prevent further offences. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence against the appellant and the implications of communal tension on bail considerations. (Paras 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of specific overt acts against the appellant warranted the granting of bail, despite communal tensions, provided conditions were met to mitigate risks. (Paras 8, 9)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; bail granted with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
This appellant is A3 in Crime No.27 of 2025, on the file of the SIPCOT Police Station, Sivagangai, registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, in pursuant to which, he was arrested on 13.02.2025. The application filed by this appellant before the Special Court for Exclusive trial of SC/ST Act in Crl.MP.No.86 of 2025, for bail was dismissed by the trial Court, by its order, dated 19.03.2025. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.417 of 2025 under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
2.Since the case in Crime No.27 of 2025 was registered including the provisions under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, this Court has ordered notice to the third respondent. The third respondent has entered appearance through his counsel, namely, Mr.Bagavath Singh. The learned counsel for the third respondent sought time to represent his case.
3.This Court is of the view that when the counsel has entered appearance for the defacto complainant, he ought to have been prepared with a copy of the FIR as well as the instructions on the objections of the defacto complainant for grant of suspension of sentence to this appellant. Considering that this appellant is in jail from 13.02.2025 and also there will be consecutive holidays for next five days, this Court is inclined to proceed with the available materials, after hearing the submissions of the learned Government Advocate.
4.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the mother of the victim, namely Ayyasamy S/o Raman, who lodged a complaint before the respondent police. When the victim Ayyasamy proceeded from his College to Melapidavoor on 12.02.2025 around 6.30 pm, an old age man crossed the vehicle of the victim Ayyasamy. Therefore, the victim advised that old age man and when attempting to start the vehicle, the accused persons, namely, Vinoth, Aathiswarran, Vallarasu restrained the victim, scolded him by his caste name and the first accused has also attacked him. The victim escaped from the spot, informed his mother/the third respondent herein about the incident and thereafter, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Manamadurai. The third respondent has lodged a complaint, based on which, a case in Crime No.27 of 2025 was registered.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that :-
i. The appellant is in jail from 13.02.2025.
ii. There is no specific overt act as against this appellant.
iii. The major overt act is as against A1.
iv.The investigation in Crime No.27 of 2025 has been completed and a charge sheet has been laid, however, it is yet to be taken on file by the concerned Court.
v. There is no reference as to the offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, however, the case has been registered including the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
6.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submits that :-
i. The victim has suffered grievous injuries.
ii. He has been discharged from the hospital, as on date.
iii.There is a communal tension in Melapidavoor Village.
iv.Though there is no specific overt act as against this appellant, he has accompanied the co-accused at the time of occurrence.
v. After investigation, a final report was filed in Crime No.27 of 2025, before the PCR Court, Sivagangai and it is yet to be taken on file.
7.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
8.This appellant was arrested on 13.02.2025, pursuant to the registration of a case in Crime No.27 of 2025 and since then he is in jail. It is reported that the investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed. The defacto complainant /the third respondent has been represented through his counsel, however, she has failed to give instructions on her objections to the counsel. This
