Ramakrishnan v. The Deputy Superintendent Of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 20.09.2018 DELIVERED ON : 05.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Crl.A(MD)No.399 of 2018 Ramakrishnan .. Appellant /Accused No.11 Vs.
1.The State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub-Division, 2.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Pazhayanoor Police Station, (in Crime No.32 of 2018) .. Respondent 1 & 2/ Complainant 3.Maheswaran .. 3rd Respondent/ de facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016, praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.1886 of 2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai (Special Court for trial of cases under SC-ST (POA) Act, 1989) dated 27.07.2018 and set aside the same and consequently, enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Cr.No.32 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police.
For Appellant :Mr.M.Jegadees Pandian For R1 & R2 :Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General Assisted by:
Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R3 : Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh J U D G E M E N T This Criminal Appeal is filed by one of the accused facing trial in Special Case No.32 of 2018 before the Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sivagangai. The brief facts leading to the present bail petition are as below:-
2. Katchanatham Village of Manamadurai Taluk at Sivagangai District is a small hamlet, mostly inhabited by people belonging to the Schedule Caste (SC) community. One family of this hamlet and villagers surrounding this hamlet belong to other community. It appears that there was a personal feud between that one family, belonging to the non-SC Community and the members of the SC Community.
3. On 31.07.2017, the members of the SC Community have given a complaint to the District Collector, alleging that Suman, son of Chandrakumar, is causing disturbance to the members of the SC Community and they are threatening their lives. They have made a specific allegation of events which had taken place in the village on 02.07.2017, 17.07.2017, 18.07.3017 and 29.07.2017 which are cause for their fear. The said representation was given to the District Collector seeking protection for their lives and properties by one Mr.M.Sundaram and nine other villagers. It appears that, thereafter, when the temple festival was conducted on 25.05.2018, Chandrakumar of non-SC community had picked a quarrel with one Shanmuganathan of SC Community. As a result, on 26.05.2018, Shanmuganathan has lodged a complaint against Chandrakumar and others. Consequently, Chandrakumar was enquired by the police.
4. The case under consideration is in respect of the unfortunate event which had taken place on 25.05.2018 at about 09.00 p.m. As per the F.I.R., a case was registered based on the complaint given by Maheswaran, son of Bhoominathan. On 28.05.2018, 17 named accused and others armed with deadly weapons attacked Shanmuganathan, Arumugam, Dhanasekaran and others. The roof of the victim's residence was damaged by the mob. The said clash has resulted in the death of three persons and injuries to five others, besides damage to the properties of the SC community people. A case has been registered against 17 named persons and other unknown persons on 29.05.2018 at 05.00 hrs for offence under Sections 147, 148 , 294(b), 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 3 of Public Property Damage and Loss Act, 1992 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3 (2)(va) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
5.The appellant herein is arrayed as 11th accused in Crime
No.32 of 2018. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the investigation is over and final report has also been filed in this regard. Therefore, he may be released on bail to defend himself to prove his innocence.
6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the release of the appellant herein will lead to the tampering of witnesses. The appellant has caused grievous injury to one Dhanasekar with deadly weapon. Therefore, if he is released on bail, even his own life is at risk.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the victim would submit that the victim's village is still in confusion and the police force is put to continuos surveillance. The appellant herein, who has caused grievous injury to one Dhanasekar, is with bad antecedents and he should not be released on bail.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and learned counsel appearing for the victim and perused the bail petition impugned and counter affidavit filed by the State.
9. Considering the rival submissions and antecedents of the appellant herein, this Court is of the opinion that the release of the appellant herein will definitely cause apprehension in the minds of the victim. Hence, in the interest of the larger public and for prevailing peace and tranquility in the village, it is inevitable to keep the petitioner in judicial custody. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III) To 1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA), Act, 1989, Sivagangai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub-Division,
3.The Inspector of Police, Pazhayanoor Police Station, 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC To MR.M.JEGADEES PANDIAN, Advocate SR. NO.89029 +1 CC To MR.G.BHAGAVATH SINGH, Advocate SR. NO. 89233 Judgment in Crl.A(MD)No.399 of 2018 05.10.2018 STS TR/SKN/SAR-III(08.10.2018)4P 8C