After 86 And 61 Days In Custody, Madras HC Grants Bail To Two SC/ST Case Accused, Orders Trichy Stay And Twice-Daily Reporting

In brief

The question

Whether the appellants should be granted bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, notwithstanding the prosecution’s objections and the victim’s stated fear

The court held

The High Court allowed both criminal appeals and ordered the appellants’ release on bail, subject to each executing a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for the like sum and complying with the specified identification, residence, reporting, and hearing-related conditions

It also directed

The respondent police may move the Trial Court for cancellation of bail if either appellant violates a condition

01Facts

The appellants sought bail in Crime No. 366 of 2026.

The prosecution case arose after a quarrel between the accused and the victims, followed hours later by the victim’s death by hanging.

The appellants contended that the deceased had taken his own life following a quarrel with his mother and that they had been falsely implicated

p. 4

The III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai, dismissed their bail applications on 27 August and 10 September 2026

p. 4

By the High Court hearing, the investigation was complete, the final report had been filed, and the case was pending as Spl.S.C. No. 103 of 2026.

pp. 4–5

One appellant had been in custody for 86 days and the other for 61 days.

pp. 4–5

The prosecution stated that the first appellant had no previous criminal antecedents, while the second had two prior cases; the third respondent also opposed bail, citing fear for her safety

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the appellants should be granted bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, notwithstanding the prosecution’s objections and the victim’s stated fear

pp. 4–6

ii.Whether conditions could be imposed to address concerns for the safety of victims, witnesses, and others in the locality while releasing the appellants on bail

pp. 5–7

03Law Applied

Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate route invoked by the appellants to challenge the orders refusing bail

pp. 1–3

In deciding whether to grant bail, the Court considered the period of custody, completion of investigation, filing of the final report, and the appellants’ respective antecedents, alongside the stated safety concerns

pp. 4–6

The Court relied on P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2005 SC 100, for the direction that the respondent police may apply to the Trial Court for cancellation of bail if a condition is violated

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 147 Section 148 Section 294 Section 323 Section 326 Section 506

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 8 Section 20

04Reasoning

The Court considered that the investigation had concluded and the final report had been taken on file, while both appellants had spent substantial periods in custody

pp. 5–6

It noted the difference in their antecedents, including the second appellant’s two prior cases, and the third respondent’s concern about possible threats

p. 5

To address those concerns while granting bail, the Court required both appellants to stay in Trichy, not visit the place of occurrence, and report to Malaikottai Police Station twice daily; it also provided for cancellation proceedings in the event of breach

pp. 6–7