Madras HC Grants Bail To Two Accused Of Abusing Community Members At Temple-Festival Meeting, Citing No Injuries And Vague Vehicle-Damage Allegations

In brief

The question

Whether the Special Court’s refusal of bail should be set aside and the appellants released on bail, having regard to the alleged vehicle damage, the absence of injuries, and the appellants’ period in custody

The court held

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Special Court’s order rejecting bail.

It also directed

It directed that each appellant be released on a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the specified identity, residence, reporting, and court-appearance conditions.

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

01Facts

A dispute over the conduct of a temple festival led to a conciliation meeting at a marriage hall near a police station.

p. 2

The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with six unidentified persons, abused members of a particular community and damaged their vehicles.

p. 2

The appellants were arrested on 27 September 2026. The Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Pudukkottai, rejected their bail application on 7 October 2026.

p. 2

In the appeal, the appellants relied on the Investigating Officer’s alteration report, which indicated that no one was injured and that there was no vehicle damage.

pp. 2–3

The State also submitted that witness enquiries disclosed no vehicle damage, while the de facto complainant produced photographs showing slight damage and acknowledged that nobody was injured

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether the Special Court’s refusal of bail should be set aside and the appellants released on bail, having regard to the alleged vehicle damage, the absence of injuries, and the appellants’ period in custody

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether bail should be subject to conditions addressing the appellants’ reporting and appearance obligations

p. 4

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

p. 2

The judgment does not cite any precedent or set out a broader statutory test for bail; it determines the appeal on the circumstances recorded, including the nature of the allegations, the absence of injuries, and the appellants’ custody since 27 September 2026

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 1

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

04Reasoning

The Court considered the allegations of vehicle damage vague, noting the Investigating Officer’s report and the State’s submission that witness enquiries showed no damage.

pp. 3–4

Although photographs produced by the de facto complainant showed slight damage, the complainant accepted that nobody was injured.

pp. 3–4

Taking these circumstances together with the appellants’ custody since 27 September 2026, the Court found grounds to grant bail.

pp. 3–4

It imposed conditions requiring bonds and sureties, residence in Theni, regular police reporting for one month, and subsequent monthly appearances before the trial Court.

p. 4

05Holding

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Special Court’s order rejecting bail.

p. 4

It directed that each appellant be released on a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to the specified identity, residence, reporting, and court-appearance conditions.

p. 4

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

p. 4

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF