High CourtsSingle Bench

Sujin And Others vs State Of Tamilnadu And Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 June 2026 · Citation: (2026) 06 MAD CK 0068

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.Pugalendhi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 194 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 115(2), 296(b), 351(2) · Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 580 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 716 words

B.Pugalendhi, J

1.

The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.116 of 2026 on the file of Vadaseri Police Station, Kanyakumari District. The said case was originally registered for the offence under Section 194 BNSS and thereafter, altered into Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and subsequently, the offences were altered into Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) and 108 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After registration of the said case as against the appellants, they have approached this Court by filing a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8221 of 2026 and obtained an order of direction to the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil, to consider their bail application on the same day of their surrender. Based on the direction of this Court, the appellants surrendered before the trial Court, however, the trial Court, by considering the allegations as against the appellants, rejected their bail application, by order dated 14.05.2026 in Cr.M.P.No.20 of 2026 and remanded them to judicial custody on 04.05.2026 and since then, they are in jail. Now, they moved this criminal appeal seeking bail.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the second petitioner's mother said to have put some garbage near the house of the deceased and therefore, a wordy altercation arose between them and consequently, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. Therefore, the case in Crime No.116 of 2026 has been registered against the appellants as if on account of the wordy altercation taken place on the previous day, the deceased had committed suicide. According to the appellants, there was a dispute between the deceased and his wife and therefore, the deceased committed suicide. However, the complaint has been foisted as against the appellants that due to wordy altercation, the deceased had committed suicide. He further submits that the petitioners are in jail for the past one month and they may be considered for grant of bail.

3.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the appellants have created problem by dumping the garbage near the deceased's house and also set fire on the garbage. When it was objected by the deceased and his wife, the appellants are said to have assaulted the deceased and abused them by degrading his caste name. Therefore, the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison.

4.

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

5.

It appears that there was a dispute between the neighbours in dumping the garbage and subsequently, there was a scuffle between the parties, for which, the deceased appears to have committed suicide by consuming poison. It is reported that the investigation is still pending.

6.

The appellants claim that already, there was a dispute between the deceased and wife and therefore, the deceased had committed suicide, however, this case has been foisted against them at the instance of the wife of the deceased.

7.

Considering the available materials, the period of incarceration and the stage of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellants.

8.

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil, in Cr.M.P.No.20 of 2026, dated 14.05.2026 is hereby set aside. The appellants are ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:-

i) The appellants shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil;

ii) The appellants and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address;

iii) The appellants shall stay at Madurai and report before the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

iv) On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellants, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the bail.