JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.1995 of 2023 dated 29.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai and enlarge the appellants on bail in connection with Crime No.482 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent Police.

2.This Court, on 22.01.2024, 30.01.2024 & 31.01.2024, had passed the following orders:

Order, dated 22.01.2024:

“The second respondent/de-facto complainant is present before this Court in person. He seeks some time to engage a counsel.

2.Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner served the copies of the petition and typed set of papers to the second respondent, who had received and acknowledged the same.

3.Post the case on 30.01.2024.”

Order, dated 30.01.2024:

“On last hearing, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant appeared before this Court and received the copies and informed that he himself would represent his case.

2.Today, when the matter is taken up hearing, the 2nd respondent is not appeared.

3.In view of the above, Registry is directed to print the name of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant in the cause list.

4.Post the matter on 31.01.2024.”

Order, dated 31.01.2024:

“The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the defacto complainant is motivated and lodged a false case against the appellants. The defacto complainant admittedly is settled and working in Chennai. The defacto complainant had come to the Village for temple festival where he had some misunderstanding with few of the Villagers and hence, he concocted a story as though there is a division in the Village and the people belonging to the Colony are being discriminated. In this case, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint even against a mentally retarded person and for that reason only, the Lower Court had not remanded A2 finding that he is a mentally retarded person.

He further submitted that all the other accused have been falsely implicated.

2.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) seeks time to file counter. He would submit that he is aware that the appellants were in prison from 05.12.2023 and 60 days is going to get over in another two days and they will be entitled for statutory bail shortly. He further submitted that he had impressed upon the respondent police to come for preparing counter but they insisted that they will make ready the counter. Further, he ensured that in any event, counter will be filed tomorrow.

3.The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant submits that in this case it is not abuse or calling of the community name against an individual, it is discrimination and boycott of members of Scheduled Caste community. On 13.09.2023 one Siva went to the shop of A1, who is running a Freezer Box Service for the dead persons, on the death of his father to hire a freezer box but was refused for the reason that the person died belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and he will not permit the dead body of scheduled caste to be placed in freezer box owned by him. A2 is a Barber who refused to trim the hair of one Dinesh since he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and thereafter, he went to the Barber shop of A3 who also refused to do hair cut, since Dinesh belongs to Scheduled caste community. A4 is running a hotel, when the defacto complainant went there to have his food, he was denied entry, he was discriminated and sent out since he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. On the complaint of the defacto complainant, a case was registered in Crime No.482 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 153(A)(1)(a) of IPC r/w. Sections 3(1)(u), 3(1)(za)(D) of SC/ST[POA] Act and Section 4(1) of PCR Act.

4.Post the matter on 01.02.2024 for filing counter.”

3.In continuation and conjunction to the above orders, this Court is passing the following order. Today, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.

Side) has filed his counter.

4.Today, Mr.S.Murugan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thanipadi Sub D