BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Saranpandian ... Appellant Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi Division, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. [in Crime No.140 of 2023]

3.Bhoomi ... Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2026, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in CrlMP(MD)No.76 of 2026 in SplSC.No.35 of 2023 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram dated 09.03.2026 and set aside the same as illegal and enlarge the appellant on bail by allowing the criminal appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.M.Pozhilan For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Nos.1 and 2 Government Advocate

ORDER

The appellant is accused No.8 in SplSC.No.35 of 2023, which is pending on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram. He was originally granted bail. However he has failed to appear before the court on 25.10.2025 and therefore, a non bailable warrant of arrest was issued and the appellant was arrested on 17.02.2026. Therefore, the appellant has filed a petition before the trial court seeking bail and the same has been dismissed. Challenging the same appellant has filed this appeal.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised an interesting question as to the notice to the victim, as contemplated under Sub- section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST(POA) Act in a case where a person, has jumped on bail. The learned counsel by referring to the provisions under Sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.10.2021 [Criminal Appeal No.1278 of 2021] submits that the notice is required only to ensure that if there is any kind of intimidation or coercion or inducement or violence or threat of violence to the victim. In this case, the investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed. While so there is no question of intimidation, coercion or inducement or any violation as against the victim. Therefore, the notice to the victim is not required. He further submits that the appellant has failed to appear only for two hearings and therefore, he must be considered for grant of bail by considering his period of incarceration.

3.The learned Government Advocate by referring to Sub-section(3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST (POA) Act submits that this right to the victim and the witnesses is conferred by the statute and it is mandated on the State to ensure timely notice of the court proceedings including any bail application to the victim and therefore, the notice as required to be served on the victim /

defacto complainant.

4.The learned counsel has also pointed out the observation of the trial court that the appellant one way or the other is evading the trial and is absconding. Therefore, the trial is pending without issuance of notice to the accused.

5.This court has considered the rival submissions.

6.Though the appellant has been released on bail earlier, considering the observation of the trial court that this appellant has failed to appear before the trial court, the other accused are also not co-operating for the trial and therefore, the copies are yet to be served and charges are yet to be framed, this court is not inclined to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for the present with liberty to the petitioner to renew this appeal after charges are framed.

16.03.2026 DSK To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi Division, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Ra