High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

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

14 November 2024 11:04 AM

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

 

Similar News