CRL A/1121/2026 of Thamizhselvan Vs The State represented by on 15 September 2026

Judgment

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 27.08.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.141 of 2026 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Cuddalore and to enlarge the appellant on bail.

2. The appellant/Accused in Crime No.135 of 2026 was arrested by the respondent police on 07.08.2026 for the offence under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(2) of BNS, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, he filed a bail application before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.141 of 2026. The learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Cuddalore, by the order dated 27.08.2026, dismissed the bail application, against which, the present appeal is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and the de facto complainant were in wine shop, at that time, there was a clash, which was now magnified as though the appellant assaulted the de facto complainant using a stick. Taking advantage of the social background the de facto complainant admitted in the hospital, lodged a complaint, the appellant was arrested and he is prison. He further submitted that the appellant has no bad antecedents.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the appellant’s contention and submitted that the appellant and the de facto complainant both were having liquor in a wine shop. At that time, there was a fight. Both went to their home and the de facto complainant informed his daughter-in-law and others in the family. Thereafter his daughter-in-law along with his mother -in-law went to the house of the appellant and there was a fight. His daughter-in-law’s two wheeler was detained by the appellant and the de facto complainant was also beaten. Thereafter the de facto complainant admitted in the hospital, information sent from the hospital and complaint received. Now in this case investigation is in progress. He further submitted that it is a case in counter. The appellant also gave a complaint and a case in Crime No.134 of 2026 registered against the de facto complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant/victim filed objection and submitted that the appellant wantonly picked up a quarrel in the wine shop only for the reason that the de facto complainant belongs to SC Community and he also beaten the de fact complainant. The de facto complainant informed his daughter-in-law, and other family members. When they went to the appellant’s house and questioned about his act, the de facto complainant’s daughter-in- law’s bike was detained. After lodging the complaint, the vehicle was seized. The appellant assaulted the victim only for the reason that the victim belongs to the marginal community.

6. Considering the fact that the investigation in this case is in progress and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

7. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions; (a) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Cuddalore;

(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 appellant is directed to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 15 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) The appellant shall not give any inconvenience or trouble knowingly or unknowingly to the third respondent, failing which, the bail shall be cancelled without any further reference.

(e) The appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (f) The appellant 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. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.08.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.141 of 2026 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Cuddalore, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 15-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI Note: Issue order copy today (15.09.2026.) To

1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Cuddalore.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panruti, Cuddalore District.

3. The Station House Officer Muthandikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

4. The Superintendent of Prison, District Jail, Cuddalore.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. RSI CRL A No. 1121 of 2026 15-09-2026