Madras High Court Grants Bail To Men Booked Under SC/ST Act On Undertaking To Pledge Allegiance To Constitution Against Untouchability

Justice M Nirmal Kumar directed the accused men to file the affidavit as under:

“I, as a Citizen of India, having utmost faith in the Constitution of India, am quite aware that 'Untouchability' has been abolished under our Constitution. I, hereby, take pledge that knowingly or unknowingly, I will not practice social discrimination based on untouchability either by words or deeds or in any other manner. I am aware that it is my duty to serve in a true, honest and faithful manner, as per the basic principles laid down under the Constitution, to create an independent Society, without any discrimination. I solemnly affirm that this would stand to speak forever the faith I have in the Indian Constitution.”

The men had approached the court to set aside an order of Special Court and to enlarge them on bail. The defacto complainant had alleged that the appellants had discriminated against and boycotted the members of the Scheduled Caste community. It was alleged that the first accused, who was running a freezer box service had refused to provide a freezer box to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. It was alleged that the second accused, who was a barber, had refused to cut the hair of a member of the Scheduled Caste community and the third accused, who was running a hotel had denied entry to the defacto complainant, also belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. Thus, a complaint was registered under Section 153(A)(1)(a) of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(u), 3(1)(za)(D) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellants contended that the complaint was a motivated one which the defacto complainant had concocted following some misunderstanding. It was submitted that the appellants were dhobis and were themselves minorities in the village. It was submitted that the petitioners, who also belonged to the marginalised community had no marked difference in the social status to exhibit dominance. It was also submitted that they did not have any bad antecedents. They also undertook to file an affidavit expressing solidarity and affirming that discrimination would not be followed by them.

Noting that the investigation was in the penultimate stage and the charge sheet was also to be filed shortly, the court was inclined to grant bail upon the filing of the undertaking.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.R.Sathiyaraj

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr.M.Subash

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 74

Case Title: Siva and Others v State and Another

Case No: Crl.A.No.46 of 2024