(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order dated 14.07.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2026 passed by the Learned Special Court for Trial of cases under section SC/ST(POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai and to allow the Criminal Appeal and enlarge the appellant on bail.)

1. This Court, by order dated 03.09.2026, passed the following order:

                     “The appellant/A3 in Crime No.156 of 2026 was arrested by the respondent police on 22.06.2026. He filed a bail application before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai, in Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2026, which was dismissed on 14.07.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred.

                     2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that A1 (Sivasaran) and the de facto complainant were friends. Further, the sister of the de facto complainant and A1 were classmates who frequently visited each other's house. A misunderstanding arose between the de facto complainant and A1, leading to an argument near a Mariamman Temple. At that time, the appellant (A3), along with one Rajesh, happened to go there and spoke in support of A1. Thereafter, the brother of the de facto complainant arrived and took him home. On the way, near a water tank, a fight broke out again, but the villagers intervened and separated them. The de facto complainant and his brother then returned home. It is projected by the prosecution that A1 subsequently went to their house, picked up a fight again, and abused the de facto complainant using his caste name. The appellant is merely said to have been present there, without any further overt acts attributed to him. In this case, A1 was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Tiruvannamalai, in Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2026 on 02.09.2026, and A2 was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.230 of 2026 on 21.08.2026. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant is similarly placed to A2, and therefore, bail ought to be granted on the ground of parity.

                     3.The learned counsel for the third respondent strongly opposed the appellant's contention. He submitted that while considering the bail application of A2 in Crl.M.P.No.230 of 2026, the Special Court failed to order notice to the de facto complainant and did not hear their objections, which is in a clear violation of Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Consequently, he is taking steps to file an application for the cancellation of A2's bail. Regarding A1, he submitted that despite strong objections raised by the de facto complainant, bail was granted by the court below merely citing that A2 had already been enlarged on bail. He further submitted that while the present appeal was pending before this Court, the appellant filed another bail application before the Sessions Judge. Upon the de facto complainant informing the learned Sessions Judge about the pendency of this appeal, that application was dismissed as withdrawn yesterday. He further contended that the investigation has not proceeded in the manner it ought to, despite the statutory mandate that investigations under this Act must be conducted by a senior officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) to ensure fairness and justice to victim. He alleged that the investigation is being conducted otherwise. Although injuries were found on the ribs and back of the deceased's body, the case is being projected as an accidental fall. A specific questionnaire was sent to the doctor, some of the injuries could be sustained if a person fell from 12 feet, raising doubts as to how the Investigating Officer concluded that the deceased had fallen from that height. He further submitted that while the postmortem report confirms fractures on the ribs, frontal region, and parietal region, the investigation is proceeding on the track of an accidental fall to shield the accused. He added that A1 shared a good relationship with the deceased until A2 and A3 started influencing A1 primarily on social status. In this case, the parents of the de facto complainant are coolies employed in Kerala, and the brother of the deceased is an agricultural coolie. The de facto complainant completed his B.Com (CA) but, unable to secure employment, he is working as an agricultural coolie. Given this socio-economic background, the Deputy Superintendent of Police failed to conduct proper investigation, and the de facto complainant contemplates filing an appropriate petition in this regard.

                     4.The learned Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 submitted that A1 and A2 have been granted bail by the court below. He fairly conceded that as regards A2, no notice was ordered to the de facto complainant. He submitted that on 22.06.2026, A1 (Sivasaran) and the de facto complainant were having a heated argument near the Mariamman Temple, during that time A2 and A3 joined them. They were subsequently separated and sent away. However, A1 to A3 followed the de facto complainant, and a fight again picked up near the water tank. In the meantime, the de facto complainant called Bakiyaraj and Murali, who arrived at the spot, and the villagers separated them, after which they went home. At around 11:30 p.m., all three accused went to the house of the de facto complainant, abused him using his caste name, and left, which formed the basis of the initial complaint. Later, at about 1:40 a.m., neighbors heard dogs barking came out found deceased lying on the floor with bleeding injuries. The de facto complainant was informed and the victim was rushed to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead, following which case was registered. He further submitted that in response to the queries raised by this Court, the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a status report detailing all particulars along with supporting materials. He fairly submitted post-mortem report, questioned to the Doctor are not in consonance.

                     5.Post the matter on 08.09.2026. Since the investigation is being carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he has not been arrayed as a party, this Court suo motu impleads Mr.S.Raja, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rural Sub-Division – Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, as the fourth respondent. The first respondent, Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, is directed to file a comprehensive status report by the next date of hearing.”

2. In continuation and conjunction to the above order, on 08.09.2026 Mr.S.Raja, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Rural Sub Division, Tiruvannamalai and Mr.Udhayakumar, Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District filed status reports separately. Thereafter, the present appeal listed on 11.09.2026, the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant sought time to file counter and objections.

3. Today, the third respondent filed a counter and submitted that he had taken his brother to Government Hospital, Thandarampet and thereafter to Government Medical College Hospital at Tiruvannamalai at the night hours at about 1.30 a.m. on 22.06.2026. Thereafter, his brother was taken to Government Medical College Hospital at Adukkamparai, Vellore, where he died. He further submitted that on perusal of the post-mortem report, it is seen that the deceased got injuries and fracture on the right temporal region, right ribs 3 to 6. The respondent police proceeding on the premise that the brother of third respondent fell from 12 feet height, is false. The breadth between the terrace and scene of occurrence is 4 feet and if the deceased had self fallen from a height of 12 feet, he should jump from the height, in such case the injuries shall be on the legs, whereas the post-mortem report says that the injuries on the right side of all over the body, which means, the deceased might have been thrown from the top. He further submitted that the viscera report confirms that the deceased not consumed any alcohol. Hence, he was not on intoxication and he was very much in sense and conscious. He further submitted that the second accused in this case obtained bail behind the back without notice to the victim/de facto complainant, following the second accused bail order, the first accused granted bail. This appeal has been filed by the third accused in this case. He further submitted that the de facto complaint is facing threats from the accused, who were granted bail. The de facto complainant is now residing in a remote village. He fears for his safety and life, since majority community threatens him. All the three accused committed offence, hence he strongly opposed the bail petition. He further doubted the manner in which the investigation was being conducted and prayed that the case may be transferred to the file of CBCID.

4. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record and also the case diary.

5. Status reports filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police are not in variance, both similar. In the status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the investigation of the case till 25.08.2026 recorded. Now Mr.Rahul V.Gopal, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Rural Sub Division took over the investigation on 01.09.2026.

6. This Court perused the Case Diary. It is seen that, on 22.06.2026, on the complaint of 3rd respondent/defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.156 of 2026 registered. On 21.06.2026, at about 10.20 p.m., near Mariyamman Temple, Perungalathur Village, the first fight took place. Thereafter, at about 10.30 p.m., near Kuthur Chellakadi Water Tank, another fight took place. At about 11.30 p.m., when the 3rd respondent and his brother/deceased Durai, returned home, A1 to A3 again came there and picked up quarrel with them. It is projected that, at about 01.40 a.m., the neighbours viz., Siranjeevi and his wife, on hearing barking of dogs, came out of their house and found deceased Durai lying on his back, with blood oozing from his nose and ears. In this case, all three accused arrested on 22.06.2026 at about 03.00 p.m., and the statements of witnesses recorded. The deceased used to drive Tata Ace vehicle on hire. A1 used to buy cows in the shandy and transport using Tata Ace of the deceased and there was some dispute in payments. The deceased died of unnatural death. The investigation proceeds on the premise that deceased Durai had accidentally fall from the height of about 12 feet from the first floor of the house and landed on the platform slab, sustaining injuries, which resulted in his death. The photographs in the Case Diary show that the house had steel grill of about four feet in height and that it is not an open terrace. Further, there is a picture showing an evil-eye object tied along with a dried coconut. There are no visible marks on the parapet wall or on the steel grill. If the deceased had fallen from the first floor, there would have been some impact on the main gate, which is close to the balcony, terrace. This aspect not satisfactorily explained. Thereafter, the investigation conducted on 25.06.2026, 26.06.2026 and 29.06.2026 does not appear to be of much consequence. On 27.06.2026, the post-mortem report collected. On 03.07.2026, the blood-stained earth and the dress of deceased sent for forensic examination, and the community certificate collected from Tahsildar. On 09.07.2026, a reminder sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. However, on 14.07.2026, the investigation takes a turn, projecting that the accused were away from the scene of occurrence from 11.30 p.m. onwards. It is shown that, at about 11.45 p.m., all three accused went to Hotel Selvi Bhavan at Purasapattu Village, for which Karnan, owner, Chithra, cashier, and Tamizharasan, cook, examined. Thereafter, met one Vijay, Field Officer, Bajaj Finance, at about 12.15 a.m., who was standing near Shankar Tailor Shop. Thereafter, at about 12.30 a.m., A1 to A3 proceeded on a Bullet motorcycle, knocked the door of TTM Lodge. One Michael, Manager, came out and informed them that the grill gates locked. Thereafter, Sirajudeen and his friend came down, and some heated exchange of words took place between, following which, A1 to A3 left the place. This part of the investigation appears to be favouring the accused to exclude them from the scene of occurrence, without any substantive material to support the same. This is a grey area which necessarily requires further investigation. The call records and tower location of the accused mobile phones yet to be collected which normally provided by the Service Providers immediately why there is a delay. Any further delay will amount to non availability of vital evidence.

7. Further, this aspect gains further significance from the questionnaires sent to Dr.A.Nagendrakumar, Police Surgeon and Professor, and Dr.Navin C.Durai, Assistant Professor, Government Vellore Medical College, Vellore, Adukamparai. The replies given by Dr.A.Nagendrakumar, dated 21.08.2026, and Dr.Navin C.Durai, dated 24.08.2026, are not only identical, but verbatim same. The questionnaires sent to Dr.P.Durai Pasumadari, Thanipadi Government Hospital, is to give explanation regarding the corrections made in the Accident Register, particularly the striking out of the words “self-fall” and the recording of “pushed by three persons”, based on the information furnished by Durai's sister Sarala and Akash.

8. From the Postmortem Report, it is seen that there were “brownish mud particles adherent to both the buttock regions and upper half of back of both the thighs”. Though details of four injuries recorded, insofar as the injuries to the chest wall, ribs/sternum and cartilage are concerned, there were irregular complete fractures of the right-sided 3rd and 6th ribs along the angles of the ribs at their posterior aspect, with surrounding soft-tissue contusion.

9. Further, the questionnaire sent to the Doctor is only in parts and does not refer to the 3rd and 4th injuries. Clarification appears to have sought only with regard to first part of the injuries. Insofar as the 4th injury is concerned, it is recorded that “there have been bruishes of contusions/bruishes of underlying scalp and temporalis muscle contused with 0.8 cm thick subgaleal haematoma beneath the scalp. “C” shaped curvilinear depressed fracture was present on right temporo-parietal region of calvarium with its concavity on the front; on removal of the calvarium: dark red biconvex extraduural haematoma of size 6.5 X 6 X 2 was found beneath the above said fracture; Diffuse subdural and sub arachnoid haemorrhage was present all over the surface of the brain; right fronto-temporal lobe irregularly lacerated and contused; irregular comminuted fracture of right middle and anterior cranial fossae with small extension into posterior cranial fossa was present; surrounding soft tissue contusion present. The injuries found on the body of the deceased cannot be so as per the investigation so far conducted.” The nature and extent of the injuries found on the body of the deceased do not appear to be satisfactorily explained by the theory projected in the investigation conducted so far. In particular, the diffuse subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage present all over the surface of the brain, as well as the depressed fracture of the calvarium, require further clarification and investigation.

10. The Post-Mortem Certificate and other medical records including video recording to post-mortem shall be sent to independent medical expert and Forensic Doctor, other than the doctors who already examined, to get clarified by second opinion. The gap in the sequence of events between 11.30 p.m. and 01.40 a.m. and the whereabouts of the accused during the said period, requires to be revisited. Merely examining two or three witnesses, without collecting and corroborating the available materials and failure to collect electronic evidence, is not proper. The investigation proceeds on a different direction rather than collecting the available evidence and materials in the case. Hence, the further deep investigation required.

11. It is also seen that the Investigating Officer, viz., Mr.S.Raja, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Rural Sub-Division, Tiruvannamalai, transferred and Mr.Rahul V.Gopal, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai Rural Sub-Division, took over the investigation.

12. In view of the above, this Court directs the present Investigating Officer to have a re-look of the entire case, conduct thorough investigation in accordance with the procedure established by law, by examining all relevant witnesses, particularly on the aspects referred to above, and to find out the reason and ascertain fact leading to the death of the deceased.

13. The status report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai reproduces the status report submitted by the erstwhile Investigating Officer which is not acceptable. This leads to infer that the Superintendent of Police not independently examined the case diary and relevant records. This Court is not satisfied with the status reports filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as well as the Superintendent of Police.

14. Hence, the investigation in this case shall be monitored by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, who shall ensure that the investigation is conducted in a fair manner and in accordance with law, and that the victim is afforded justice as contemplated under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Further, in view of the apprehension of the victim for safety of his life, adequate police protection to be given to the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant and his family members and ensure that they live without fear.

15. As regards the appellant, considering the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 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), Tiruvannamalai;

                     (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., until further orders;

                     (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.

16. With the above directions, the impugned order dated 14.07.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2026 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Tiruvannamalai, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.