Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Mithun @ Selvamurugan – Appellant
Versus
R.Gomathi – Respondent
Crl.A.Nos.1356 & 1313 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.John Sathayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.N.S.Sunganthan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.B.Kumarasamy
Bail cannot be denied in the absence of clear evidence of abetment of suicide, allowing release on bail under specific conditions.
Headnote:(A) SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A - Criminal Appeal for bail - Dismissal of bail plea set aside due to absence of evidence for abetment of suicide - Appellants were wrongfully confined and the evidence provided did not support the charges. (Paras 4 and 5)
(B) Right to bail - The court considered the duration of incarceration and lack of evident culpability on the part of the appellants, allowing them to be released on bail under specified conditions. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of abetting the suicide of the husband of the defacto complainant. The deceased had been allegedly assaulted by the appellants following allegations of theft, leading to severe distress and eventual suicide attempts.
Findings of Court:
The court found no substantive evidence indicating that the appellants had abetted the suicide shortly before the deceased’s death and viewed the confinement as wrongful, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Issues: The absence of evidence proving direct abetment of suicide and whether wrongful confinement occurred were central issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without sufficient evidence of abetment, the imprisonment of the appellants was unwarranted, thus justifying their release on bail.
Result: Both appeals are allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstances leading to charges of wrongful confinement and resultant suicide. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. consideration of evidence in granting bail. (Para 3) |
| 3. evidence is necessary for establishing abetment. (Para 4) |
| 4. final decision allowing bail based on evidence assessment. (Para 5) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Criminal Appeals have been filed praying to set aside the orders of dismissal of bail petitions through the orders dated 18.08.2025 made in Crl.MP.Nos.104 & 103 of 2025 in crime No.384 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST(PoA) Act, Tiruppur, and to grant bail to the appellants.
2. The case of the prosecution was that the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased person named Dhayalan. He was working as Fabric in-charge in the Banyan Company of the first accused, which is being run in the name and style of 'Jetta Fashions'. Under such circumstances, on 03.07.2025, at about 09.00 hours, the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant had received a phone call from the wife of A1, whereby she told that the defacto complainant's husband had stolen banyan rolls and sold to some third parties illegally and asked to come along with her husband to the Banyan Company. Therefore, the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant along with her husband/deceased went to the Banyan Company at about 10.00 hours on the same day. While being so, Al, his wife/A2 along with 5 others had enquired her husband/deceased regarding theft and selling of Banyan Rolls, thereby the deceased, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, had admitted that he had stolen the goods for the reason the salary and petrol allowances were irregular for the past four years. After admission by the husband of the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and caught red handed with the misappropriation through G-Pay, the accused persons assaulted the husband of the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant indiscriminately by insulting him using the caste name. The video was also recorded by the accused persons.
2.1 Under such circumstances, the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant had attempted to prevent them. However, the accused persons had made the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant to wait outside and tortured her husband till 9.00 by confining him in a separate room. Thereafter, the accused persons seized the 3rd respondent's husband's mobile hone, aadhar aard, Black Color Splendor Bike bearing No. TN 39 D 5549 and also obtained undertaking on a White Paper stating that the land measuring 2 ½ cents in the name of mother in law of the 3rd respondent would be conveyed to the accused. It was stated by the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant that the Accused Persons have made only contused wound and as such there was no external injuries. Under such circumstances, on 04.07.2025, the land which was in the name of the mother-in-law of the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant was coerced and transferred in the name of the father in law of A1. Further, they had threatened the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and her mother-in-law with dire consequences and also asked them to bring the bank details on 05.07.2025. Therefore, due to the depression and insult, the husband had consumed 'ALL OUT-Mosquito Liquid' and was in Government Hospital for 3 days. Therefore, 3rd respondent/defacto complainant had made a complaint at this stage before the Commissioner of Police on 08.07.2025.
2.2 Further, it was alleged in another FIR for the same offence in Crime No.383 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025, it was stated that the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant's husband, due to pain and insult, had consumed insecticide on 15.07.2025 at about 08.00 pm. Therefore, he was fainted at about 11.00 p.m. and he was brought to hospital at about
12.10 a.m. on 16.07.2025. Thereafter, the doctors declared that the husband of the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant was dead at about
05.00 a.m. due to non-responding of treatment.
3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing o
