Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.PUGALENDHI, J
R.Mathan – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Elayankudi Sub Division, Sivagangai District – Respondent
CRL A(MD)No.324 of 2026 | Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2026 | Crime No.61 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For the Respondents:Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R3: No appearance

Bail granted in SC/ST atrocity case considering nature of offence and incarceration period.

Headnote:The judgment involves offences under Sections 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abused the complainant using filthy language and caste name on 22.02.2026, leading to registration of the case and arrest. The trial court dismissed the bail petition. The court found that considering the nature of the offence and period of incarceration, bail was warranted. The appellant contended innocence, absence from the scene, and false implication due to village disputes. The respondent highlighted prior cases. The ratio decidendi rests on balancing the offence gravity against detention duration, inclining towards bail grant despite atrocity allegations. The criminal appeal was allowed, trial court order set aside, and appellant released on bail with specified conditions including bond, reporting, and identity proof.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Bail granted in SC/ST atrocity case considering nature of offence and incarceration period (!) . - Appellant challenged bail dismissal and claimed innocence and false implication due to village disputes (!) (!) . - Court set aside trial court order and released appellant on bail with conditions including bond, identity proof, residence reporting, and travel restrictions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Prosecution alleged offences under sections 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the POA Act 2015 (!) . - Appellant remanded to judicial custody on 27.02.2026; bail petition dismissed by trial court on 04.03.2026 (!) . - Court noted prior cases against the appellant but emphasized balancing offence gravity with detention duration to grant bail (!) . - Appellant to stay in Madurai and report daily at 10:30 a.m. before Othakadai Police Station until further orders (!) . - On violation, police may move to cancel bail (!) . - Notice issued to 3rd respondent with no representation (!) . - The judgment clarifies that the appeal was allowed and the bail order dated 04.03.2026 was set aside (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Table of Content
1. prosecution case details and prior bail dismissal (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellant innocence claim vs prior cases (Para 3 , 4)
3. bail granted considering offence nature and detention (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

The appellant is an accused in Crime No.61 of 2026 on the file of the 2^nd respondent Police, for the offence under Sections 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2026, at about

5.00 p.m. the appellant along with other accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and also by using his caste name. Hence, the case was registered on 22.02.2026 and the appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.02.2026. Thereafter, he has moved a bail petition before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2026 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 04.03.2026. Challenging the same, the appellant has moved this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. There was a dispute between certain groups in the village, relating to community issues, due to which, the defacto complainant has lodged this complaint as against the appellant. He further submitted that the essential ingredient of the offence is not made out as the appellant was not present in the place of occurrence. Therefore, this case has been foisted as against the appellant. Since the appellant is in jail for the past one month, he prayed to grant bail to the appellant.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed that apart from this case, the appellant is having two previous cases.

5. This Court, by order dated 12.03.2026, ordered notice to the 3^rd respondent. Though notice was served on the 3^rd respondent, there is no representation for the 3^rd respondent.

6. Considering the nature of offence and the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, this Court is inclined to allow this Criminal Appeal.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated 04.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2026 on the file of the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act cum Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:-

i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Exclusively trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act cum Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.

ii) The appellant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address;

iii)The appellant shall stay at Madurai and report before the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

iv) On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellant, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the bail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document