(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 22.09.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.2114 of 2026 passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of the cases under Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Principal District and Sessions Court, at Kancheepuram and enlarge the Appellant on bail in Crime No.60 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent police.)

1. The appellant/accused in Crime No.60 of 2026 was arrested by the respondent on 04.06.2026. He filed a bail application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram in Crl.M.P.No.1196 of 2026 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 08.07.2026. Thereafter, he filed bail application in Crl.O.P.No.20293 of 2026 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 28.07.2026 dismissed the bail application. Subsequently, he filed another bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.23108 of 2026 and the same was ordered and bail was granted on 19.08.2026. Thereafter, when the petitioner went to execute surety, the surety was not accepted and returned on 21.08.2026 for the reason that F.I.R., which was initially registered under Section 194 BNSS @ Section 103(1) of BNS has been subsequently altered by inserting Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act on 21.08.2026, hence surety was not executed. For that reason, the present petition is filed.

2. Notice has been ordered and served to the victim’s family on 28.09.2026 and Dinesh/de facto complainant, the son of the deceased sought for a Legal Aid Counsel and hence, Ms.Y.Gomathi, was appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initially F.I.R. registered under suspicious death and thereafter it was altered to Section 103(1) of BNS for murder and appellant was arrested on 04.06.2026. He further submitted that now investigation completed, charge sheet filed on 15.09.2026. The case itself is that the de facto complainant’s father Murugan was employed as a Water Operator in Nobeltech Company and he was found dead under mysterious circumstances at the night of 30.05.2026. Thereafter complaint lodged. During investigation, it was found that the deceased had stealthily removed the mobile phone of the appellant and there was wordy quarrel, due to which, the petitioner had committed murder. But there is no direct eyewitness to the same. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Hence, he prayed for granting bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased in this case has been working as a water operator in Nobeltech Company for the past 13 years and was doing night duty. On 30.05.2026 at about 6.00 a.m., when one Krishnan had gone to change over the duty of Murugan, he found Murugan got bleeding from his mouth and right ear. He informed the de facto complainant, the son of the deceased, who gone there and later lodged a complaint. Initially, a case was registered under Section 194 of BNSS, thereafter during investigation, the appellant committing murder came to light and the section was altered from 194 BNSS to 103(1) of BNS on 19.08.2026. Later, finding that the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste community, offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act included on 21.08.2026.

5. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the appellant committed a cold blooded murder. The earning family member of the family has been taken away. The family is now in distress and pain. Though it has been projected as though the deceased had taken the mobile phone of the appellant, it is not so. For the past 13 years he has been working as a water operator. What was the relationship, how the appellant had come there and for what reason the murder has been committed, there is no proper explanation. She further submitted that now in this case, investigation completed. Hence, strongly opposed this bail petition.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the appellant was arrested on 04.06.2026. Earlier, the appellant was granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.23108 of 2026 for offence under Section 103(1) of BNS. Later, at the time of executing sureties, it came to light that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act to be included. Hence, surety was not executed. Further in this case, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet filed. In view of the above facts and circumstances, 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 Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Kancheepuram/Principal District and Sessions Judge, 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 appellant is directed to appear before the Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Kancheepuram/Principal District and Sessions Judge, Principal District and Sessions Court, Kancheepuram on every Monday till the charge sheet is taken on file and thereafter to appear on all hearing dates without fail;

                   (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 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 22.09.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.2114 of 2026 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Kancheepuram, is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.

9. This Court appreciates the service rendered by Ms.Y.Gomathi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent. The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority shall pay the remuneration to Ms.Y.Gomathi, Legal Aid Counsel.