Madras High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Bail Granted in SC/ST Atrocities Case After Complainant’s No-Objection, Subject to Stringent Conditions.

K.Karthikeyan vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 01, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Bail Granted in SC/ST Atrocities Case After Complainant’s No-Objection, Subject to Stringent Conditions.. K.Karthikeyan vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellants, accused Nos. 1 to 4, appealed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the refusal of bail by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli

Source reference: p. 2, para. 1

The prosecution alleged that, after the de facto complainant married Gayathri, the appellants intercepted them, assaulted the complainant, and abused him by referring to his caste

Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3, 6

The appellants asserted that the case arose from enmity and that the dispute had been settled; the complainant filed an affidavit stating that he had no objection to bail

Source reference: pp. 2, 4, paras. 2, 4, 6

The prosecution opposed bail, stating that the investigation was at an initial stage.

Source reference: p. 3, para. 3

The cause title and prayer identify Crime No. 349 of 2026, while paragraph 3 refers to Crime No. 359 of 2026

Source reference: pp. 1–3
02

Issues

Whether the order refusing bail should be set aside and the appellants released on bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act

Source reference: p. 2, para. 1; p. 5, paras. 7–8
03

Law Applied

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

Source reference: p. 2, para. 1

The alleged offences were under Sections 294(b), 115(2), 127 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act

Source reference: p. 3, para. 3

The judgment cites no precedent or separately articulated test governing bail; it considers the circumstances and grants bail subject to conditions

Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 5–8
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the prosecution’s allegation that the appellants targeted the complainant because of his caste, as well as the complainant’s affidavit of no objection and the parties’ reported settlement

Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 3–6

Having considered the circumstances and submissions, the Court concluded that bail was warranted, notwithstanding the prosecution’s opposition and submission that the investigation was at an early stage, and imposed conditions it described as stringent

Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 3, 5–8
05

Holding

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 23 September 2026 refusing bail, and ordered the appellants’ release on bail

Each appellant was required to execute a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for a like sum, provide identity and address documents, file an undertaking before the police not to involve in future offences, and report to the police when required; breach could prompt the police to seek cancellation of bail

Source reference: pp. 5–6, para. 8(i)–(v)
06

Acts & Sections Cited

5 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19891

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20234

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

K.KarthikeyanvsThe State of Tamilnadu, rep

Madras High Court · October 01, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment