Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 43110
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jeyasoorya – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
CRL A(MD) 1075 2023
In cases involving serious offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, bail should not be granted if the investigation is still pending and all the accused are still in judicial custody.
Headnote:
BAIL - SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - SECTION 18 - CANCELLATION OF BAIL - OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - INVESTIGATION IS STILL PENDING - ALL THE ACCUSED ARE STILL IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY - BAIL APPLICATION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was arrested and remanded on 08.09.2023 for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 120B and 302 of IPC r/w section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant filed a petition for bail in Crl.M.P.No.2175 of 2023, before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, Sivagangai, and the same was dismissed on 29.11.2023. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred this Criminal Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Considering the nature and the gravity of the offence, the investigation is still pending and the fact that all the arrested accused are still in judicial custody, this Court is not inclined to allow this Criminal Appeal.
Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted bail in a case where he is accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the investigation is still pending.
Ratio Decidendi: In the present case, the appellant is accused of committing a serious offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The investigation is still pending and all the accused are still in judicial custody. Considering these factors, the court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Crl.A.(MD).No.1075 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on
: 13.12.2023
Pronounced on
: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Crl.A.(MD).No.1075 of 2023
Jeyasoorya
... Appellant / Accused No.3
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppathur Sub Division,
Sivagangai District.
...1st Respondent/Investigating
Officer
2.The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppathur Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.172 of 2023)
...2nd Respondent/Complainant
3.Manjula
...3rd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to call for the records relating to the order
passed by the Sessions Court (FAC), Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.1075 of 2023
Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sivagangai in Cr.M.P.No.2175 of
2023, dated 29.11.2023 and set aside the same by release the appellant on
bail.
For Appellant
: Mr.K.G.Arunkumar
For R1 & R2
: Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3
: Ms.Manjula (Party in Person)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated
29.11.2023 made in Cr.M.P.No.2175 of 2023 on the file of the Sessions
Court, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act
1989, Sivagangai and to release the appellant on bail.
2. According to the prosecution the appellant and other accused
said to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148,
341, 120B and 302 of IPC r/w section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.1075 of 2023
3.The case of the prosecution is that on 07.09.2023, the defacto
complainant's son and his friend went to the wine shop, at that time, a wordy
quarrel arose between the defacto complainant's son and the accused
persons. Thereafter, the accused persons came to the defacto complainant's
son's house and asked to go for the Rekla-Race competition at
Suinnampirruppu. He has also agreed to go with them, after reaching
Ranasingapuram Graveyard, the accused persons attacked the defacto
complainant's son/deceased with knife and caused grievous injuries to him.
Due to the injuries, he died on the spot. Hence, the de-facto complainant
lodged a complaint before the respondent police and the case has been
registered in Crime No.172 of 2023 against the appellant and other accused
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 120B and 302 of IPC r/w
section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore,
the appellant has filed a petition for bail in Crl.M.P.No.2175 of 2023, before
the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act
1989, Sivagangai, and the same was dismissed on 29.11.2023. Challenging
the same, the appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal.
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.1075 of 2023
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant did not involve in any occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
He further submitted that the appellant name is not mentioned in the FIR
and he was not at all present in the occurrence place. He would further
submit that the appellant is willing to produce sufficient sureties for the
appearance and the appellant will never abscond and will not tamper the
witnesses. The appellant was arrested and remanded on 08.09.2023 and no
previous case is pending against the appellant and hence, he seeks to grant
bail to the appellant.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police submitted that there was a wordy quarrel arose between
the defacto complainant's son and the accused persons in the wine shop and
thereafter, all the accused persons went to the defacto com
