Blog

 

DATED : 31.08.2023

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.A.(MD).No.748 of 2023

 

Introduction:

 The case of Thiyagarajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu revolves around a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, Thiyagarajan (Accused No.5), under Section 14 A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant seeks to set aside an order issued by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V in Madurai District on July 31, 2023, and obtain bail in connection with PRC No.51 of 2017. The case pertains to allegations of assault and caste-based abuse against Thiyagarajan and several other accused individuals.

Factual Background:

 On January 23, 2015, an incident occurred near Kadasanenthal, Uthaya Tea stall, where the defacto complainant (Palani @ Palanirajan) was selling chicken. The prosecution alleges that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatened the defacto complainant with a knife and physically assaulted him. Furthermore, it is claimed that the appellant, Thiyagarajan, and other accused individuals also attacked the defacto complainant using their hands while verbally abusing his caste.

Following this incident, the police registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 324, 506(2), and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.V in Madurai District, and the case was registered as PRC No.51 of 2017. The charges included those under the IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015.

Thiyagarajan failed to appear before the trial court on one specific hearing date, which led to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant against him. Subsequently, he was arrested on July 26, 2023, and remained in custody at the time of filing this appeal.

Key Arguments:

1. Appellant’s Counsel’s Submission: Thiyagarajan’s counsel argued that the appellant had a history of appearing before the trial court and missed a hearing only on one occasion. As a lorry cleaner, he had valid reasons for not appearing on that specific date. Therefore, he requested bail for Thiyagarajan.
2. Defacto Complainant’s Submission: The counsel for the defacto complainant objected to the grant of bail, emphasizing that the case had been pending in the PRC stage since 2015. This suggests a significant delay in the legal proceedings, which he believed should not result in bail for the appellant.
3. Government Advocate’s Submission: The government advocate representing the State and the police echoed the defacto complainant’s objections, emphasizing the pending Non-Bailable Warrant and the fact that the case had not been committed to the jurisdictional court.

Court’s Analysis and Decision: After considering the arguments presented by all parties and reviewing the available evidence, the Honorable Mr. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan delivered the judgment.

The court noted that the appellant and other accused individuals were alleged to have physically assaulted the defacto complainant with their hands, causing injuries. The defacto complainant had been discharged from the hospital, indicating that the injuries were not life-threatening. Furthermore, the appellant had a history of regularly attending court hearings, with the failure to appear on one occasion.

Taking into account the period of the appellant’s incarceration and the absence of any prior criminal record, the court decided to allow the criminal appeal. The order dated July 31, 2023, issued by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.V in Madurai District, was set aside. Thiyagarajan was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, each for a similar sum, satisfying the Judicial Magistrate No.V in Madurai.

Additionally, the court imposed several conditions on the appellant, including:

• The sureties providing photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bond, along with valid identity cards.
• The appellant’s mandatory appearance before the Judicial Magistrate No.V in Madurai daily until the committal proceedings were over and thereafter monthly before the Special Court in Madurai.
• Prohibition from tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
• Cooperation with the investigation.
• Warning that any breach of these conditions would result in appropriate legal action.
• The possibility of a fresh FIR being registered if the accused absconds.

Conclusion:

The judgment in the case of Thiyagarajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu highlights the court’s balanced approach in considering bail applications. While recognizing the seriousness of the charges, the court also considered factors such as the appellant’s past court attendance, the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant, and the absence of a criminal record. This case analysis demonstrates the importance of a fair and thorough judicial review when determining bail applications in criminal cases.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreeya S Shekar

Click here to view judgement