SAKTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.981 of 2021 by order dtd. 4/12/2021 passed by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Cuddalore.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Savithri is that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and she was married to one John @ Shajahan and she is living as housewife and she got two younger sisters viz., Rajalakshmi and Gandhimathi. The youngest sister Gandhimathi was given marriage to one Krishnan one year ago and they were living in the same village. While so, on 16/2/2021, her brother-in-law Krishnan along with his friends had committed murder of one Veera and when he attempted to escape, the police had taken action due to which, he died on the next day. At that time, her sister Gandhimathi was three months pregnant and she was under the care and custody of her Mother-in-law Lakshmi and that three months ago, she had delivered a male child. Prior to the marriage of her sister Gandhimathi with Krishnan, her sister had illicit intimacy with one Aravind (A1). After the death of Krishnan, while her youngest sister Gandhimathi was alone, the said Aravind (A1) had frequently visited her sister and that the defacto complainant and her sister's mother-in-law had advised her sister Gandhimathi and reprimanded Aravind not to come to the house of her sister. The said Aravind had openly declared that if Gandhimathi is not for him, he would murder her. while so on 18/9/2021, the defacto complainant along with her husband had gone to visit her sister's child. At that time, their relative one Arusamy @ Arumugam called her sister to take him to a hospital saying that he got injured while riding in a two wheeler. Her sister Gandhimathi against the advise of the defacto complainant and her husband, had went along with the said Arumugam in a two wheeler to the hospital. The defacto complainant and her husband had followed them by running behind the vehicle. At that time, around 08.20 p.m., while the said Arumugam along with her sister Gandhimathi went to the hospital, the said Aravind (A1) along with his friends Sakthi, Madhan and Arumugam had waylaid them and at that time, the said Arumugam had informed them that he had brought her sister Gandhimathi as per their plan and stopped the vehicle and surrounded them and indiscriminately cut the deceased with machete and thereafter escaped from the scene of occurrence in a two wheeler. They had taken her sister to the Cuddalore Government hospital and from there, they were referred to Puducherry Jipmer hospital where they were informed that her sister Gandhimathi was brought dead. Based on the complaint given on 19/9/2021 at 02.00 hours, the respondent had registered a case in Crime No.825 of 2021 for the offences under Ss. 120B, 294(b), 153, 505(1)(b), 302 I.P.C. and under Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant and the other accused were arrested on 19/9/2021 and remanded to the judicial custody on the same day. The appellant had filed an application for bail in Crl.M.P.No.981 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Cuddalore and the learned Judge by order dtd. 4/12/2021, had dismissed the application against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is arrayed as A2 in this case. He has been falsely implicated in this case, since the appellant is friend of the first accused. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the first accused Aravind was having illicit affair with the deceased and if it is so, there is no reason for the first accused to have joined with the other accused and committed murder of the deceased. He would further submit that it is the case of the defacto complainant that the deceased was having illicit affair with the first accused even prior to her marriage with one Krishnan. Admittedly, it is not a case where the murder is alleged to have been committed on account of the parties belonging to different communities or that the victim was done to death on account of the deceased victim belonging to a schedule caste community. Learned counsel would further submit that even as per the complaint, the allegation against the appellant is that he had inflicted injuries on the right hand of the victim. He is in custody from 19/9/2021 for the past 124 days. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and the final report has also been filed before the Special Court. He would further submit that the first accused in this case has been detained under Act 14 and that the appellant has no other cases against him and that there is no purpose in keeping the appellant in the judicial custody.