Bail was granted after further custodial interrogation was found unnecessary, subject to stringent conditions.

The appellants, arrayed as A3 and A1, respectively, challenged the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai’s orders refusing bail in Crime No. 220 of 2026.

The prosecution alleged that on 23 August 2026 the appellants and co-accused unlawfully assembled and attacked the de facto complainant and her son; the complainant allegedly lost five teeth, and her son sustained an injury to his right eye.

The appellants relied on the registration of a counter-case, the discharge of the injured persons from hospital, their periods in custody (about 45 and 51 days), and their claim that the investigation was complete.

The prosecution opposed bail, citing specific overt acts, pending receipt of the wound certificate, incomplete investigation, and prior cases against both appellants. The injured son also objected to bail, expressing concern that the appellants would intimidate the victims.

Whether the orders refusing bail should be set aside and the appellants enlarged on bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Whether the appellants’ custody, the progress of the investigation, and the circumstances of the alleged injuries justified bail notwithstanding the prosecution’s objections and the victim’s apprehension of intimidation.

The appeals were brought under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which provides for an appeal to the High Court against specified orders, including orders refusing bail.

The Court’s bail assessment considered the appellants’ time in custody, the need for further custodial interrogation, the progress of the investigation, and the alleged injuries; it imposed conditions intended to address the risk of future offending or interference.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, including the complainant’s alleged loss of five teeth and the son’s alleged loss of sight in his right eye, as well as the victim’s stated fear of intimidation.

It nevertheless noted that both injured persons had been discharged, that the appellants had spent about 45 and 51 days in custody, and that no further custodial interrogation was necessary; it also considered that most of the investigation would by then have been completed. On that basis, the Court found bail appropriate, subject to stringent conditions.

Each appellant must execute a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties for a like sum; the appellants and sureties must provide government-issued identity and address proof and file undertakings not to involve themselves in future offences. The appellants must stay at Trichy and report to the Inspector of Police, Malaikkottai Police Station, at 10:30 a.m. until further orders; the police may seek cancellation of bail if any condition is breached.