CRL A/1226/2026 of Nalla Mohamed Vs The State Rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Poli on 9 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal challenges the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai in Crl.M.P.No.1551 of 2026 dated 24.09.2026, dismissing the appellant's bail application filed in Crime No.464 of 2026, registered for the offences under 296(b) of BNS r/w 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, and 67 of the IT Act.

2. It is the case of the de-facto complainant that the appellant was known to the de-facto complainant; that the appellant was in the habit of demanding a bribe from the de-facto complainant; that when the de-facto complainant questioned the same, the appellant got enraged and abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language over phone and humiliated his caste. The appellant was arrested on 17.09.2026 and he has been in custody since then.

3. The Trial Court dismissed the bail on 24.09.2026, as the investigation was not completed and it was too early to release the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged complaint is false; that in any case, the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in a phone conversation; that it would not amount to humiliating the de-facto complainant in public view, and none of the offences are made out; and that in any case, the appellant is in incarceration from 17.09.2026, and his further incarceration is not required for the purpose of investigation.

5. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant, however, vehemently opposed the bail, stating that the appellant was always in the habit of humiliating the de-facto complainant on account of his caste and harassing him to pay bribe, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who would submit that the investigation has almost been completed, and the appellant is in custody from 17.09.2026.

7. Admittedly, the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in a phone call. The question as to whether the said conversation would amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act or under Section 296(b) of BNS has to be examined during trial. Further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation or trial. The appellant is in custody from 17.09.2026. Hence, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail on the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge at Mayiladuthurai;

(ii) the appellant and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity;

(iii) the appellant shall appear before the second respondent police station on every Sunday @ 10.30 a.m;

(iv) the respondent police is directed to ensure that there is no threat to the life and safety of the de-facto complainant. In the event of any threat, appropriate steps are to be taken.

(v) the appellant shall not commit any offence of similar nature;

(vi) the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(vii) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(viii) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions Judge/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellants released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

(ix) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

8. In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 24.09.2026, in Crl.M.P.No.1551 of 2026 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Mayiladuthurai, is set aside, and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk Note: Issue order copy today.

To

1. The District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police Sembanarkoil Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

4. The Sub Jail, Poraiyar, Mayiladuthurai District.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN J. dk CRL A No. 1226 of 2026 09-10-2026