logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2774 print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : CRL. A.(MD). No. 439 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. PUGALENDHI
Parties : Thangavel Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S. Ayyanar Premkumar, Advocate. Forthe Respondents: R1 & R2, A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), R3, No Appearance.
Date of Judgment : 22-04-2026
Head Note :-
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 30.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.193 of 2026 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and set aside the same and subsequently, enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Crime No.144 of 2026 on the file of the 2nd respondent Police.)

1. The appellant, who is the sole accused in Crime No.144 of 2026, has filed this appeal as against the order dated 30.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.193 of 2026 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

2. The appellant has borrowed a sum of Rs.12,65,607/- as loan from the sister of the 3rd respondent and he has not repaid the said amount. When the 3rd respondent demanded for return of money on behalf of his sister, the appellant is said to have abused him and his sister and also criminally intimidated him. Based on complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent, this case has been registered as against the appellant for the offence under Sections 296(b), 351(2) of BNS and Section 4 of TNPHW Act 2002 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since this case has been registered under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 5458 of 2026 seeking a direction to the trial Court to consider his application for grant of bail on the date of his surrender. This Court, by order dated 17.03.2026, allowed the said petition permitting the appellant to surrender before the trial Court and also issued a direction to the trial Court to consider the bail petition if any filed by the appellant after his surrender.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.03.2026, the petitioner surrendered before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The learned Judge accepted the surrender and dismissed the bail petition and remanded the appellant to jail, by order dated 30.03.2026 in Cr.M.P.No.193 of 2026. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is purely a money dispute, however, it has been given with criminal colour. The learned Judge, without considering the directions issued by this Court, remanded the petitioner to jail. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail from 30.03.2026.

5. Since this case has been registered under the provisions of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this Court, on 15.04.2026, ordered notice to the 3rd respondent. Though notice has been served on the 3rd respondent and his name has also been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the 3rd respondent.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the petitioner has abused the defacto complainant and her sister by degrading their community in person and also over phone. According to him, the defacto complainant has also produced the phone recording to the investigating agency.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made.

8. Admittedly, there was a loan transaction between the parties. When the defacto complainant demanded the appellant for return of money, the alleged occurrence had taken place. Thereafter, this case has been registered as against the appellant. Now, the appellant is in jail from 30.03.2026. Whether the phone recording produced by the defacto complainant is a genuine or not, can be considered only during the investigation. On this available materials, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant with certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated 30.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.193 of 2026 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, 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 learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

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; If there is any change of address, the same shall be intimated to the respondent Police.

iii)The appellant shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.

iv)The appellant shall not misuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in any further offence and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The appellant shall co-operate for investigation.

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

 
  CDJLawJournal