“Period of Detention Can’t be Sole Basis to Grant Bail, Gravity of Offence Must be Considered: Madras HIGH COURT”
Case Title: K. SelvaKumar vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tamil Nadu
Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 3391 of 2011
Dated on: 15th April 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar
FACTS OF THE CASE
On 27.12.2023 at about 15.30 hours the defacto complaint lodged to the respondent police stating that he and his uncle Sengottaiyan were hunting birds using slingshot, at that time, some stones hit the hen and cocks in A1 property. The hens and cocks got panic, started making noise and were flying here and there. On hearing the noise of the birds, A1 came out of his house, caught hold the defacto complainant and Sengottaiyan, called the villagers and friends who tied them in the coconut tree and the accused beaten them black and blue. Further Sengottaiyan died. In this case A4 is still absconding. Special court dismissed the bail application of the appellant and had now preferred the present appeal.
Criminal Appeal filed under section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST Act, the appellant who is arrayed as A7 in crime NO.783 of 2023 for the offence under section 147,148, 294(b), 342,324,506 (ii), 307, 302 IPC r/w. 3(1)(r), 3(2)(b) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 filed this appeal/bail application. This court by order dated 10.01.2024 directed the appellant to surrender before the Trial court and on such surrender, directed the special judge to consider his bail applicant on the same day of his surrender.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The learned ASG, his submission was that the appellant is innocent and not committed any offence. The appellant was implicated on the confession of co-accused. In this case bail was already granted by Special Court TO A1 IN Crl.M.P.NO. 376 of 2024 on 20.02.2024, A2, A4 to A6 granted bail by the Special Court in Crl.M.P.NO.378 of 2024 on 20.02.2024 and A8 granted bail by the Special Court in Crl.M.P.NO. 421 of 20240n22.02.2024.
He would submit that the Special Court granted bail to the accused finding that they were in confinement for 56 days and 54 days, 56 days respectively and also for the reason that investigation is almost completed. But the appellants bail application was dismissed for the reason that the appellant was in prison only for 30 days and the investigation as far as the petitioner, it is in premature stage. Now, the appellant is in confinement for more than 60 days and hence, prayed for bail.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Submission by the Respondents, has argued that the on 14.03.2022 some unknow persons searched and reached them, attempted to tamper the witness to fizzle out the case of its rigor. For the threat and to dissuade the witnesses. Submitted that the wife of sengottaiyan was sanctioned the compensation amount of Rs.6 lakhs. The prosecution though represented that they were informed about notice and also made their objection while granting bail to the other accused is not proper.
Respondent further submitted that the accused in this case was very influential persons belonging to the dominant community with muscle and political power, and played fraud on the court in collision with the person who are entrusted with duty to safeguard the victims from oppression, all joined hands with the offenders and facilitated them to grant bail.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 14(A)(2) OF SC/CT Act: An appeal shall lie to the high court against an order of the special court or the Exclusive Special court granting or refusing bail.
Section 147: whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to two years or with fine or both.
Section 148: whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with deadly weapon of offence is likely to death shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to three years or with fine or both.
Section 294(b): whoever commits offence such as sings, recites or utters any obscene songs near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to three months, or with fine or both.
Section 342: whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or both.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
Considering the submission made and on perusal of the materials the sum and substance is that defacto complaint was not informed, no summons issued and his objection were not heard in any of the bail applications as mandates under section 15A (3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
The rationale for the decision, the term refers to key factual point or chain of reasoning in case that drives the final judgement. Through analysis of the fact, the judge applies appropriate rule or principle of law and makes ruling on the verdict of case. It is generally binding on lower courts and later and later judgement, ratio decidendi is a norm law that the judge openly or implicitly treats as an essential step in reaching the decision.
It is informed by the legal aid counsel appearing for the third respondent that already cancellation bail petitions flied for suppressing the facts and fraud committed in obtaining bail. Further, granting of bail in cases under SC/ST Act cannot be on the ground of period of detention or the stage of investigation, it has to be considered on the gravity and nature of the offence. Hence present bail petition stands dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
Click here to read the judgement
