The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and proportionality in bail decisions, especially where allegations stem from civil disputes rather than genuine communal conflict.

JUDGMENT

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated

04.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Tiruppur, in C.M.P.No.34 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 third 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 Aswin/A1/appellant of Pethappampatti, on 27.01.2026, at about 1.00 a.m., the appellant, 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 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 Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant is the owner of the property measuring 12 acres and 7 cents in several survey numbers in Madathukulam Village and he has been issued with pattas for the same. The appellant had leased the property to one Pushpa. While so, one Gopinath attempted to interfere in the possession of the lessee of the appellant. On 26.01.2026, the said Pushpa had engaged her employees to do agricultural work. When they had gone to the lands, they were brutally assaulted by the employees of the said Gopinath. The driver of the vehicle, in which the employees had gone viz, Gowtham had, informed the same to Pushpa and the said Pushpa had given a complaint through Telephone calling 100. Subsequently, the employees of Gopinath have indulged in the act of arson and brutally assaulted the employees of Pushpa resulting in the death of one Manigandan. Based on the complaint given by the said Gowtham, a case in Crime No.22 of 2026 had been registered by the respondent police. While so, as a counter blast, the said Gopinath had instigated his employee/ third respondent viz, Riju to give a complaint as if the appellant, along with his men, has assaulted him and also abused them by caste name. He would further submit that the appellant is a B.Com graduate, employed as a Admin Manager at CTP Granites, Rayachoty, Andhra Pradesh and he was not at all present at the scene of occurrence. He would further submit that the appellant, on coming to know about the case registered against him, had surrendered before the Court on 04.03.2026 and he has been remanded to judicial custody. He would further submit that the custody of the appellant was also taken and he has been sent back to judicial custody and the injured in this case have also been discharged from the hospital. The learned counsel would further submit that a case has been registered only on account of a land dispute and neither the appellant nor the alleged persons who went to the place, kno