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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by The Superintendent of Police Villupuram – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | Crime No. 35/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Hemanathan
For the Respondents: Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2

The court underscores the necessity of timely bail consideration in light of the SC/ST (POA) Act protections.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a direction under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. for the Special Court to consider his bail application on the same day as his surrender in connection with Crime No. 35/2026. The dispute arose from a land transaction, where the petitioner allegedly abused the complainant during a quarrel. The court emphasized the need to consider bail applications while adhering to the SC/ST (POA) Act provisions. The petitioner is directed to surrender within fifteen days and the petition is disposed of.

Table of Content
1. dispute related to land transaction and commission. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. court hears arguments before making a decision. (Para 3)
3. emphasis on ensuring legal protections under the sc/st (poa) act. (Para 5)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Sessions Judge/Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Villupuram, to consider the bail application of the petitioner herein in Crime No.35 of 2026 on the file of the second respondent, on the same day of his surrender.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to a dispute with regard to payment and sharing of commission, a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. During the said quarrel, the petitioner allegedly abused the defacto complainant by using his caste name and assaulted him. Hence, the case.

3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials on record.

4. Considering the submission made and on perusal of the materials it is seen that in this case the petitioner was involved in a land transaction through the de facto complainant. Subsequently, a dispute arose between them with regard to payment and sharing of commission. When the de facto complainant demanded his commission for facilitating the sale of the land, the petitioner allegedly abused him by referring to his caste name.

5. In view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also taking into consideration the possibility of misusing the pious intention of the Parliament against innocent persons, there shall be a direction to the Sessions Judge/ Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act cases, Villupuram, to consider the petitioner’s bail application, preferably on the same day of his surrender, in connection with Crime No.35 of 2026 on the file of the second respondent Police and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the victims under Section 15-A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

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