Rejection of Remand Is Permissible, But Granting Bail Without Jurisdiction and Without Hearing Victim Is Illegal: Madras High Court Pulls Up Magistrate, Orders Judicial Training

Magistrate Cannot Grant Bail in SC/ST Atrocities Act Case Without Hearing Victim or Having Jurisdiction: - In a significant ruling Madras High Court partly allowed a State appeal challenging the order of a Magistrate who rejected remand and simultaneously granted bail to an accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice P. Velmurugan held that while the Magistrate was within his right to refuse remand, the act of granting bail in an SC/ST Act matter involving serious charges triable only by the Sessions Court was beyond his jurisdiction and in violation of Section 15A(3) of the Act.

The case arose from an FIR registered in Crime No. 1003 of 2023, where Jaganathan, the Vice Chancellor of Periyar University, was accused of abusing his official position by forming an unapproved company—PUTER Foundation—within the university premises. The second respondent, a union leader, alleged financial misappropriation, unauthorised MOUs with private entities, and the use of caste slurs in public.
 

On 26.12.2023, after the FIR was registered under Sections 294(b), 120(B), 420, 468, 409 r/w 511, 506(1) IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the accused was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem. The Magistrate rejected the remand and instead granted bail. The State challenged this before the High Court under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act.

High Court’s Observation on Remand and Bail Jurisdiction: Justice Velmurugan made a critical distinction between remand powers and bail jurisdiction: “Remanding an accused is subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate; it is not mandatory in all cases. But granting bail, especially under the SC/ST Act, is governed by statutory mandates.”

The Court upheld the Magistrate’s discretion to reject remand but found grave fault with his decision to grant bail: “The learned Magistrate has not followed the mandatory procedures for granting bail for offences triable by the Court of Session. Section 409 IPC is punishable with life imprisonment, and offences under the SC/ST Act are triable only by the Special Court.”
 

The Court noted that the Magistrate had failed to give notice to the victim before granting bail—an express violation of Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, which mandates victim participation in all bail hearings under the Act.
Court Emphasizes Procedural Mandate and Judicial Discipline:

The High Court was unequivocal in declaring the Magistrate's bail order as illegal: “Granting bail without jurisdiction and without hearing the victim under Section 15A(3) is completely against the statute and established judicial precedents.”
In a stern institutional directive, the Court further ordered: “Registrar General, Madras High Court, is directed to impart training to Magistrates in the State Judicial Academy, covering the subject of power of Magistrates to grant bail for offences triable by the Court of Session and under the Special Act.”

The High Court allowed the appeal in part. It confirmed the rejection of remand but set aside the bail granted to the accused. The accused was directed to cooperate with the investigation and warned that failure to do so would allow the investigating agency to proceed with arrest and custody as per law.

“As far as rejection of remand is concerned, there is no error. But granting bail to the accused is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.”
 

This ruling clarifies the boundaries of Magistrate jurisdiction in sensitive cases under the SC/ST Act and reiterates the statutory rights of victims to be heard at all stages. The decision reinforces procedural discipline in bail jurisprudence under special laws and serves as a cautionary precedent for subordinate courts dealing with offences triable exclusively by Special or Sessions Courts.
 

Date of Decision: April 29, 2025