After 2 Months In Custody, Madras HC Grants Bail To 3 Accused In Alleged Mob Attack That Damaged Homes, Vehicles

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Special Court’s refusal of bail should be set aside and bail granted to the appellants

The court held

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Court’s order dated 2 September 2026 and directed that the appellants be released on bail.

It also directed

Each appellant was required to execute a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

They were directed to stay at Coimbatore and report to the Inspector of Police, Keelamedu Police Station, twice daily for one month, and thereafter to appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of each month until further orders, subject to the stated exception for required trial-court appearances.

The police may seek cancellation of bail if a condition is violated.

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that, following disputes between two groups in August 2026, a mob entered Govindan Kovil Street on 26 August 2026, used abusive language and damaged house fittings and vehicles.

p. 3

The appellants were among those charged in Crime No. 117 of 2026.

p. 3

They appealed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Special Court’s order refusing bail.

pp. 3–4

They argued that no specific overt act was attributed to them and that they had been falsely implicated.

pp. 3–4

The complainant’s counsel acknowledged that the allegations against the appellants were general and that no one was injured or abused; the prosecution submitted that the final report had been filed.

pp. 4–5

The appellants had been in custody since 28 August 2026.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Special Court’s refusal of bail should be set aside and bail granted to the appellants

p. 3, 5

ii.2. Whether the circumstances, including completion of the investigation, the appellants’ period in custody and the general nature of the allegations, warranted release on bail

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provided the statutory basis for the criminal appeal against the Special Court’s order.

p. 3

The Court applied its discretion to grant bail, considering the circumstances of the case, including the status of the investigation, the period of incarceration and the allegations attributed to the appellants.

p. 5

The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory test.

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 14A

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the final report had been filed, the appellants had been in custody since 28 August 2026, and the allegations against them were general, without specific overt acts; it also recorded that no one had been injured or abused.

pp. 4–5

Taking these circumstances into account, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

p. 5