Siva v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :12.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI 1.Siva 2.Sivamani @ Sivaprakash 3.Sakthivel 4.Maruthapandi ... Appellants Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Natham, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

Crime No.168 of 2026.

3.Saravanan ... Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as amended by Act 1 of 2016, to call for records relating to the order in Crl.MP.No.69 of 2026, dated 06.04.2026, on the file of the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases), Dindigul and set aside the same and grant bail to the appellants, by allowing this Criminal appeal. 1/8

For Appellants : Mr.S.Poornachandran For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Shathurthiraja, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R3 : No appearance

J U D G M E N T

The appellants have been arrested in Crime No.168 of 2026, on the file of the second respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, on the complaint of the third respondent / defacto complainant. The appellants have filed an application in Crl.MP.No.69 of 2026 before the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul and the same was dismissed on 06.04.2026. Therefore, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.

2. When this matter came up before this Court on 30.04.2026, the learned counsels on either sides submitted as follows:- "2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is a case and counter case and these appellants have also suffered injuries at the hands of the defacto complainant, for which a separate complaint has 2/8

been lodged before the respondent police.

3. According to the learned counsel, the defacto complainant is the aggressor in this case, however, this case has been foisted as against these appellants, since a case has been lodged as against the defacto complainant and others.

4. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submits that the defacto complainant is studying in an Engineering College at Coimbatore and therefore, he requested to permit the mother of the defacto complainant to be present before this Court. The mother of the defacto complainant, who is present before this Court, states that her son has also suffered serious injuries and he took treatment in the hospital."

3. Considering the submissions made and the nature of offence, this Court suggested the parties to appear before this Court to resolve the issue amicably and granted interim bail to the appellants vide order dated 30.04.2026 till 05.06.2026 with certain conditions. Thereafter, when the case was listed on 05.06.2026, there was no representation for the third respondent / defacto complainant. Hence, in order to provide one more opportunity to the third respondent, the matter was adjourned to today. 3/8

4. However, even today, there is no representation for the third respondent / defacto complainant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he has filed proof of service and has intimated the date of hearing to the third respondent / defacto complainant. He submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and therefore, the third respondent has not shown any interest to appear before this Court.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that, this Court, while granting interim bail imposed a condition on the appellants to report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m. However, the appellants have complied with the condition only till 04.06.2026 and thereafter, they did not appear before the respondent Police.

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made. 4/8

8. This Court is not inclined to approve the conduct of these appellants in not complying the condition imposed by this Court. However, it appears that the appellants complied with the condition upto 04.06.2026 and the case has been listed on 05.06.2026 and on that date, there was no representation for the third respondent / defacto complainant and therefore, this Court posted the matter today.

9. It is true that considering the nature of offence and the fact that this is a case in counter, this Court has already considered the grant of bail to the appellants. Now, it is also reported that the parties have amicably settled the issue between themselves. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellants.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act cases), Dindigul in Crl.M.P.No.69 of 2026, dated 06.04.2026 is hereby set aside. The trial Court shall bound over the bond and sureties, which have already been furnished by the appellants pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.04.2026 and release the appellants on 5/8

bail. The appellants shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

12.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

mbi 6/8

To 1.The Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Pudukkottai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Natham, Dindigul District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.

4.The Superintendent, District Prison, Dindigul.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

B.PUGALENDHI, J., mbi Judgment made in 12.06.2026 8/8