SC/ST Act | Bail Can't Be Granted Merely Based On Period Of Detention, Nature & Gravity Of Offence Must Be Considered: Madras High Court

Justice M Nirmal Kumar was not inclined to grant bail observing that the accused seemed to care more about the life of a domestic bird than that of a man merely because he belonged to a marginalised society. Thus, noting that the accused had committed a gruesome murder, the court rejected the bail application.

“Further, granting of bail in cases under SC/ST Act cannot be on the ground of period of detention or the stage of investigation, it has to be considered on the gravity and nature of the offence. From the above, it is seen that the appellant along with other accused committed gruesome murder by tying the innocent persons for injured hens and cocks. The accused seems to value the life of domestic bird to be precious than a human life, only for the reason that the person hails from deprived and marginalized society. The family members of the victim are shattered in a state of shock and fear. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant,” the court said.

The prosecution case was that when the de-facto complainant along with his uncle Sengottaiyan were hunting birds, some stones hit the hens and cocks belonging to the first accused. When the birds started making noise, the first accused came out, caught hold of the duo, and tied them to a coconut tree. The first accused then called some other villagers who then beat the duo. Sengottaiyan expressed dizziness, felt down, and died after being taken to the Government Hospital.

A crime was registered for the offenses under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 343, 324, 506(ii), 307, 302 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(b) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner, Selvakumar was arrayed as the 7^th accused and arrested based on confession of the co-accused.

Selvakumar argued that the Special Court had granted bail to the co-accused considering their period of detention but rejected his bail petition since he had been incarcerated for only 30 days. Now, pointing out that he had been in confinement for more than 60 days, he prayed for bail.

The State informed the court that a substantial portion of the investigation was completed and the authorities were awaiting the caste and community certificate of the accused and the victim. The court was informed that the chargesheet was yet to be filed and opposed the plea stating that granting bail merely on period of detention was not proper.

The defacto complainant argued that while granting bail to the other accused, the victims were neither informed nor any notice was served to them thus defeating the purpose of Section 15A(3) of SC/ST Act. The complainant informed the court that though the State claimed to have informed about the notice, they came to know about their rights only through the legal aid counsel. The court was also informed that the accused had even tried to tamper the witness to fizzle out the case. The defacto complainant also argued that the police was aiding the accused instead of safeguarding the victims from suppression.

The court, noting that the defacto complainant was not informed and heard in any of the bail applications, remarked that there was laxity from the concerned officers in adhering to the Acts and Rules. The court thus granted liberty to the de facto complainants to pursue the cancellation of bail applications.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.P.Srinivasan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.Lavanya Thirumalai Legal Aid Counsel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 179

Case Title: K Selvakumar v The State and Others

Case No: Crl.A.No.245 of 2024