Madras HC Grants Bail To 3 Men Accused Of Caste Insult And Assaulting Schoolchildren Amid Village Idol Road Protest

The appellants were accused in Crime No. 229 of 2026 of offences under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 192 and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that, during a village dispute concerning the procession of a Pillaiyar idol, the appellants insulted the de facto complainant by using his caste name and later assaulted and intimidated school-going children.

After surrendering before the Special Court on 12 October 2026, the appellants’ bail application was dismissed; they appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

The complainant did not appear despite service of notice.

The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that investigation was pending.

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

The alleged offences were under Sections 191(2), 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 192 and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court also referred to P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, applying its stated proposition that the Trial Court may take appropriate action for breach of bail conditions as if it had itself imposed those conditions.

The judgment does not set out a broader test governing bail under the SC/ST Act.

The Court considered the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration undergone by the appellants and, on that basis, found it appropriate to grant bail.

Although the prosecution relied on the pendency of the investigation, the Court did not treat that circumstance as sufficient to deny bail.

It imposed conditions requiring bonds and sureties, regular police attendance for two weeks, non-interference with the complainant, and no absconding, repetition of similar offences, or tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The order also provided for action in the event of breach and noted that a fresh FIR could be registered under Section 229A IPC if the accused absconded.