Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case

14 November 2024 4:28 PM

By: sayum


Madurai Bench of Madras High Court overturns Special Court's order, grants bail with stringent conditions. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has granted bail to Nandhakumar and Nareshkumar, accused of caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bench, led by Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, overturned the Special Court’s order denying bail, highlighting the absence of prior criminal records and lack of evidence of communal tension.

Nandhakumar and Nareshkumar, appellants in the case, were accused of abusing the defacto complainant, Sanmugam, with casteist slurs while he was performing his duties as a sweeper in Adalur Panchayat. The incident occurred on March 26, 2024, when Sanmugam was substituting for his ailing wife. Following the abuse, a complaint was lodged, and the appellants were arrested on March 30, 2024. The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul, had denied bail to the appellants on April 15, 2024, prompting the current appeal.

Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan noted the appellants had been in custody for over 28 days and had no prior criminal antecedents. The court observed, “The act of the appellants to abuse the defacto complainant while he was discharging his cleaning work is not condonable,” but balanced this against the lack of prior misconduct and communal tension.

The court considered the submissions of the Government Advocate and the counsel for the defacto complainant, who argued there was a threat to the witnesses’ safety. However, the court determined that stringent bail conditions could mitigate these concerns, ensuring both the fair trial rights of the accused and the safety of the witnesses.

In granting bail, the court emphasized the principles of justice and the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case. The judgment discussed the balance between upholding the law against caste-based atrocities and ensuring that accused individuals are not unduly deprived of their liberty without sufficient cause.

Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan stated, “Taking into account that the appellants are inside the jail for more than 28 days and also the fact that the appellants have no previous antecedents and no case of communal tension is pleaded by the prosecution, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Appeal.”

The Madurai Bench's decision to grant bail underscores the judiciary's nuanced approach in handling cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act. By setting aside the Special Court’s order, the High Court highlighted the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the accused while ensuring the safety and dignity of the victims. The judgment sets a precedent for balancing the strict enforcement of laws protecting marginalized communities with the fair treatment of the accused.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

 

Latest Legal News