AKATHIYADEVAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERAMBALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2024 dtd. 12/3/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Perambalur and enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with Crime No.101 of 2024 on the file of the second respondent Police.

(2.) The appellants, who are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.101 of 2024 for offences under Ss. 294(b), 324, 355 and 506(i) of IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were arrested by the respondent police on 5/3/2024. The appellants filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Perambalur in Crl.M.P.No.23 of 2024 and the same was dismissed vide impugned order, dtd. 12/3/2024. Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that the appellants and the third respondent/de-facto complainant/victim are adjacent land owners. The appellants' goats entered the de-facto complainant's land and they were grazing there. At that time, the de-facto complainant chased the goats, the field was left open after harvest and there was no restriction to graze the goats. Hence, a wordy quarrel arose, which ended in scuffle. The appellants lodged a complaint for the incident on the same day. The respondent police kept the appellants' complaint pending. On coming to know about the complaint lodged by the appellants, the victim in this case, lodged a complaint and a case in Crime No.101 of 2024 assigned and the appellants were arrested. He further submitted that though the appellants lodged a complaint earlier, the appellants complaint shown as 'occurrence taken place at about 3.15 p.m.' and the de-facto complainant's complaint shown as 'occurrence taken place at 3.00 p.m.'. The appellants and the defacto complainant are adjacent land owners both residing in the same village for long time. Both aware about their social and economic status and there is no necessity for the appellants to abuse the de-facto complainant by calling caste name, a normal fight now given a communal colour and they were arrested and detained.