Legitimate grounds for bail can be established by considering the duration of custody and evidence of false allegations.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused seeking to set aside the Order dated 14.10.2025 in C.M.P.No.121 of 2025 in Crime No.274 of 2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur and to enlarge her on bail in Crime No.274 of 2025 on the file of 2^nd respondent Police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant had preferred a complaint to the respondent Police alleging that appellant/accused used a filthy language about the caste of 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant and slapped the 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant in front of his wife and also, threatened the family members of 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant for involving the 3^rd respondent/de-

facto complainant in the political activities in the surrounding region. Based on the complaint given by 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant, respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.274 of 2025 against the appellant/accused.

3. The learned counsel for appellant/accused submitted that 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant was working as a labourer in the house of Mr.Ranganatha Gounder (Accused No.1 in Crime No.274 of 2025) and appellant/accused is the wife of said Ranganatha Gounder. The 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant was regularly absent for work without any intimation. When appellant/accused and her husband (Accused No.1 in Crime No.274 of 2025) sought explanation for the absence of 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant, 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant had lodged a false complaint to respondent Police stating that appellant/accused used a filthy language about the caste of 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant and assaulted the 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant, due to which, 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant had sustained fracture in his right hand.

3.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for appellant/accused that appellant/accused has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. This is a clear case where the beneficial provision of SC & ST Act has been misused for settling village quarrel.

3.2. The learned counsel for appellant/accused submitted that appellant/accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.10.2025. The appellant/accused is ready to abide any condition to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that this Criminal Appeal may be allowed and appellant/accused may be enlarged on bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of respondents 1 & 2 submitted that investigation of the case is almost completed. He further submitted that he has strong objection for granting bail to appellant/accused.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant submitted that appellant/accused has been in judicial custody for 40 days.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that appellant/accused is the wife of Ranganatha Gounder (Accused No.1 in Crime No.274 of 2025) and 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant was working as a labourer in the house of Accused No.1. According to the prosecution, 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint stating that appellant/accused used a filthy language about the caste of 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant and assaulted the 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant and also, threatened the family members of 3^rd respondent/de-

facto complainant.

8. The contention of appellant/accused is that 3^rd respondent/de-facto complainant had lodged a false complaint against appellant/accused and b