SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Ponraj – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.A.No.1712 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Ilamvaludhi for Mr.R.Babu
For the Respondents:Mr.V.Meganathan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side), Mr.B.Mohan

The misuse of SC/ST (POA) Act provisions is a significant concern, warranting careful judicial scrutiny in bail applications.

Headnote:The appeal was filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 to challenge the order passed by the Sessions Judge denying bail to the accused. The prosecution alleged that the accused used derogatory language regarding the complainant's caste and caused injuries. The Court found merit in the appeal based on the period of incarceration and allowed the bail application. The main issues included the validity of the complaint and the circumstances surrounding the arrest. The Court emphasized the misuse of the SC/ST Act and granted bail, subject to stringent conditions.

Table of Content
1. the appellant seeks bail following allegations of caste-based violence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. opposition to bail was presented by government advocate based on investigation status. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's observations on the merits of the complaints and duration of custody. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. final ruling allowed bail with strict conditions due to prior custody. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused seeking to set aside the Order dated 24.10.2025 in C.M.P.No.125 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 him on bail in Crime No.274 of 2025 on the file of 2nd respondent Police.

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

facto complainant in the political activities in the surrounding region. Based on the complaint given by 3rd 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 appellant/accused and 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant are residents of Puthupalayam. The 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant had lodged a false complaint to respondent Police stating that appellant/accused used a filthy language about the caste of 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant and assaulted the 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant, due to which, 3rd 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 he 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 political revenge.

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 3rd 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. According to the prosecution, 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant had lodged a complaint stating that appellant/accused used a filthy language about the caste of 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant and assaulted the 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant and also, threatened the family members of

3rd respondent/de-facto complainant.

8. However, the contention of appellant/accused is that 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant had lodged a false complaint against appellant/accused and based on the complaint of 3rd respondent/de-facto complainant, respondent Police arrested the appellant/accused and kept him in judicial custody.

9. The appellant/accused has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.125 of

2025 before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur seeking bail. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruppur vide Order dated 24.10.2025, dismissed the said bai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top