P.Subramani v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL A No. 334 of 2026
1. P.Subramani
2. Santhi ..Appellant(s) Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vaniyambadi Sub-Division, Tirupattur District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Ambalur Police Station, Tirupattur District.
Crime No.25 of 2026.
3. Sathya Kumari ..Respondent(s) Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Amendment Act 2015, seeking to set aside the order dated 07.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.530 of 2026 by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirupattur and consequently enlarge the appellants on bail in Crime No.25 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ambalur Police Station, Tirupattur District.
For Appellants :
Ms.M.V.Priyadharshini for Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy
For R1 & R2 :
Ms.J.R.Archana, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R3 :
No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 07.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.530 of 2026 by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirupattur and consequently enlarge the appellants on bail.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution are that the third respondent/de-facto complainant, who belongs to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community, lodged a complaint on 02.02.2026 against the appellants and their daughter, Manjula. The complaint alleged that the accused used a JCB machine to damage a public cart track leading to her agricultural land, blocked her access by erecting a thorn fence and subjected her to caste-based abuse. Based on this complaint, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 126(b) and 326(B) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(y) and 3(1)(za)(A) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The appellants were subsequently arrested on 27.02.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed a petition for bail in Crl.M.P.No.530 of 2026 before the Court of Sessions Division of Tirupattur, Tirupattur District. However, the same was dismissed on 07.03.2026 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur.
3. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are senior citizens, aged about 80 and 65 years respectively, who are suffering from age-related ailments. She further submitted that several civil disputes and counter-complaints are pending between the parties. She also submitted that originally, the third accused, who is the daughter of the appellants, is the owner of the disputed property and since the third respondent/de-facto complainant and her family members allegedly attempted to trespass onto the properties of the appellants' daughter, they have put up a fence and consequently, the daughter of the appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2025 before the District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi, which remains pending.
The learned counsel contends that the present complaint is false and was filed solely in retaliation, leading to the appellants' arrest. She further submitted that the substantial part of the investigation is complete, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary. The appellants are willing to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court and therefore, prays for their enlargement on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the appellants used a JCB machine to cause damage to the pathway leading to the land of the third
respondent/de-facto complainant. It is further contended that the appellants erected a fence, thereby preventing the third respondent/de-facto complainant and other villagers from entering into their respective lands. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that as the investigation is pending, she strongly objected for grant of bail.
6. Despite service of notice on the third respondent/de-facto complainant and her name being printed in the cause list, none appeared on her behalf.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials on record.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and that the appellants are senior citizens, aged about 80 and 65 years respectively, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed, the appellants are granted bail and the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.530 of 2026 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, dismissing the bail application of the appellants, is hereby set aside.
9. Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:- i. the appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur;
ii. the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity;
iii. the appellants shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one week and thereafter, every Saturday for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required.
09-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Sni Note: Issue Order Copy Today.
To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vaniyambadi Sub-Division, Tirupattur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Ambalur Police Station, Tirupattur District.
3.The learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur.
4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Superintendent, Vellore Women Central Prison, Vellore.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Sni CRL A No. 334 of 2026 09-04-2026