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) 23733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J
V.Saranya – Appellant
Versus
The State represented by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udulmalpet Sub-Division, Tiruppur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal | Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2026 | Crime No.21 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.D.Ilayaraj
For the Respondents:Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Bail may be granted if continued incarceration is not warranted based on evidence and circumstances.

Headnote:This appeal challenges the order passed by the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, rejecting bail to the appellant in a case involving serious allegations of rioting and assault. The prosecution alleged the appellant arranged a mob assault on the de facto complainant due to a civil dispute. The court determined the appellant’s continued incarceration was unwarranted given her background and the fact the injured party was discharged from the hospital. The primary issue was framed around the sufficiency of evidence against the appellant. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, granting bail under specific conditions.

O R D E R

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated

23.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Tiruppur, in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2026, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking bail in Crime No.21 of

2026.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the second respondent/de facto complainant is that he was taking care of the farmland owned by one Gopinath, by residing there along with one Karthik. Owing to an existing civil dispute between the owner of the de facto complainant and one Aswin/A1 of Pethappampatti, on 27.01.2026, at about 1.00 a.m., the first accused, along with his associates, came to the farmland, where the de facto complainant was working, in a JCB vehicle, cars and tractors. They abused the de facto complainant by calling him by his caste name, assaulted both the de facto complainant and his colleague Karthik after tying their hands, damaged the shed and took away their cellphone, ATM card and cash. As a result of the incident, the de facto complainant and his colleague sustained grievous injuries and were taken to hospital. Thereafter, based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the aforesaid case in Crime No.21 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 303(2) of the BNS, Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 3 of the TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 was registered.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that though the name of the appellant does not find place in the First Information Report, she was implicated in this case as A11. He also submitted that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and since she had supported Aswin, who is arrayed as A1 in this case, in the civil dispute with the owner of the de facto complainant, she has also been arrayed as one of the accused. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the appellant, who has been in custody from 01.02.2026. However, the Court below, without taking into consideration the grounds raised by the appellant, dismissed her bail petition vide order dated

23.02.2026. Hence, he prayed to set aside the said order.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for respondents 1 and 2, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that though the name of the appellant/A11 does not find place in the First Information Report, during enquiry, it came to light that the appellant was the person who had arranged the other accused to assemble and create a riot at the farmland where the de facto complainant is employed. She further submitted that the injured persons have been discharged from the hospital. She also submitted that one previous case is pending against the appellant herein.

5. Though notice has been served on the third respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation on his behalf.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first and the second respondents and upon perusal of the materials available on record and taking note of the fact that the injured persons have been discharged from the hospital and the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 23.02.2026.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Tiruppur, in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2026 is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the sa

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