(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act r/w 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023, praying to set aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No. 966/2025 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 28.11.2025 in Crime No. 347/2025, on the file of the 1st respondent by allowing the present appeal and enlarge him on bail.)

1. This criminal appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.966 of 2025, dismissing the appellant’s application for bail.

2. The appellant was arrested and remanded on 28.11.2025 in Crime No.347 of 2025, for the alleged offence under Sections 296 (b), 118(1) & 109 of BNS Act r/w Section 3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. The gist of the allegation against the appellant is that the de facto complainant was resting on the stairs case leading to the appellant’s house; that enraged, the appellant had attacked the de facto complainant with hands and legs and abused in filthy language and caused his death.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the bail application of the appellant on the ground that the offence committed by the appellant is serious and since the investigation is pending, he is not entitled to bail.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital; that the appellant is in custody from 28.11.2025; and that considering the nature of the allegation, his further incarceration is not required for the purpose of investigation.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent reiterated the averments in the FIR and submitted that investigation is pending.

7. Though notice was served on the de facto complainant, none entered appearance on behalf of the de facto complainant on 15.12.2025. Hence, this Court appointed Mr.V.Perarasu as Legal Aid Counsel for the de facto complainant. Today, when the matter was called, Mr.R.Raghul, learned counsel submitted that he takes notice for the de facto complainant.

8. Mr.R.Raghul, learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that the appellant is a notorious person; that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and cause further harm to the victim and hence opposed the grant of bail.

9. Mr.V.Perarasu, learned Legal Aid Counsel reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.

10. The allegation as stated above is that the appellant had attacked the victim after a sudden quarrel. No motive has been attributed to the occurrence. The appellant is in custody from 28.11.2025. Considering the nature of allegations, the manner in which the occurrence took place and since the victim has been discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the appellant is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail on the following conditions:

                   (i)The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Nagapattinam;

                   (ii)the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

                   (iii)the appellant shall stay at Trichy and report before the Trichy Town Wall Police Station everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

                   (iv)the respondent police is directed to ensure that there is no threat to the life and safety of the de-facto complainant. In the event of any threat, appropriate steps to be taken.

                   (v)the appellant shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

                   (vi)the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

                   (vii)the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

                   (viii)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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];

                   (ix)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in Crl.M.P.No.966 of 2025, dated 28.11.2025. The District Legal Services Authority shall pay the schedule fees to Mr.V.Perarasu, Legal Aid Counsel.