CRL A/1088/2026 of Naresh Singh @ Sonu Vs The State Rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Poli on 17 September 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of the cases Under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Caste (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (Principal District and Sessions Court) Kancheepuram in Crl.M.P.No.1786 of 2026, dated 17.07.2026, and to set aside the same and consequently release the appellant on bail in connection with Crime No.390 of 2026 pending on the file of the 2nd Respondent.

2. The appellants A1 and A3 in Crime No.390 of 2020 were arrested by the respondent police on 09.07.2026. The contention of the appellants is that they hail from Rajasthan and are working in factories in and around Sriperumbatur. The first appellant recruits persons for employment in factories located in and around Sriperumbatur and is working as a recruitment agent. The husband of the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant, who also hails from Rajasthan, had approached the first appellant and joined as a contract employee at Tamilnadu Autoparts. He was residing at Sriperumbudur. __________

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 06:12:51 pm )

CRL A No. 1088 of 2026

2.1. On 14.05.2026, a dispute arose and an exchange of words took place between the first appellant and the husband of the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant, which escalated into a quarrel. Thereafter, the husband of the de facto complainant returned to his native place. It is stated that on 16.05.2026, he contacted his wife/de facto complainant and informed her that the appellants had beaten him severely. He was taken to a hospital in Rajasthan, where he underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by him.

2.2. Initially, a complaint was lodged in Rajasthan, and a zero FIR in Crime No.1 of 2026 was registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS read with section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POV) Act. Thereafter, the said FIR was transferred through e-mail to the first respondent police, and a case in Crime No.390 of 2026 was registered for similar offences. The appellants were arrested on 09.07.2026.

2.3. It is further contention of the appellants that the dispute is purely an employer-employee dispute, which has been magnified and projected as though the appellants had forcibly assaulted the husband of the de facto complainant. It is stated that he has since been discharged from the hospital and is presently convalescing in Rajasthan.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are three __________

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 06:12:51 pm )

CRL A No. 1088 of 2026 accused in total and that the accused/A2 had already been granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.1990 of 2026 by the learned Special Court, Kancheepuram.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the de facto complainant and her husband hail from Rajasthan and that, on 14.05.2026, the husband of the de facto complainant was severely beaten by the appellants and others, causing injuries to him. Thereafter, he was forcibly sent to Rajasthan by train. On 16.05.2026, he was left without any care at Dholpur Railway Station. He subsequently contacted his wife / de facto complainant/3rd respondent and informed her about the quarrel and assault. He was taken to Ayusmen Hospital and thereafter, he was referred to Massia Hospital, Jaipur, where he had taken treatment as inpatient for 8 days. Surgery was performed in the spinal region. He was discharged from the hospital on 25.05.2026 and thereafter, lodged a complaint before Mania Police Station, Rajasthan. The complaint was transmitted to the respondent police, and a case was registered in Crime No.390 of 2026. Thereafter, the appellants were arrested on 09.07.2026.

5. Notice was served on the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant, who appeared in person before this Court and identified by P.Dhayalan, SSI of Police, C1-Sriperumbudur Police Station. She was enquired with the assistance of a Hindu-knowing person. She informed that for the medical treatment, the appellants had paid some amount, and that the dispute was a labour dispute. She __________

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 06:12:51 pm )

CRL A No. 1088 of 2026 further submitted that she had no serious objections to the grant of bail to the appellants.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the statement of the de facto complainant and the period of incarceration undergone by the appellants, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellants.

7. Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions; (a) The appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of the Cases under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Principal District and Sessions Court), Kancheepuram; (b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Sessions Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(c) The appellants are directed to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m, for a period of 2 weeks and thereafter every alternate Monday until the filing of the charge sheet; (d) The appellants shall not give any inconvenience or __________

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 06:12:51 pm )

CRL A No. 1088 of 2026 trouble knowingly or unknowingly to the husband of the de facto complainant, failing which, the bail shall be cancelled without any further reference.

(e) The appellants shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (f) The appellants shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (g) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

(h) 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 17.07.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.1786 of 2026, on the file of the learned Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of the Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Principal District and Sessions Court), Kancheepuram, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 17-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No jd Note: Issue order copy on 18.09.2026. __________

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 06:12:51 pm )

CRL A No. 1088 of 2026 To

1. The Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of the Cases under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Principal District and Sessions Court), Kancheepuram

2. The Central Prison, Puzhal.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. __________

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 06:12:51 pm )

CRL A No. 1088 of 2026 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. jd CRL A No. 1088 of 2026 17-09-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 18/09/2026 06:12:51 pm )