1. The appellant is the second accused in Crime No.1860 of 2022 of Kaduthuruthi Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 342 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(e) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the wife of the 4th respondent alleging that, on 15.12.2022 at about noon, the accused caught hold of her husband, assaulted and wrongfully restrained him by tying his hands from behind. It is also alleged that the offences were committed with the knowledge that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste. Upon arrest, the appellant moved an application for bail before the Sessions Court, which stands dismissed by Annexure A2 order. Hence, this Crl.Appeal.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the incident occurred when the 4th respondent's husband was found to be urinating in public, exposing his private parts in the process. This was done in the presence of some minor children. Hence, the accused questioned the vulgar act of the 4th respondent's husband. This resulted in wordy altercation and nothing more. The Sessions Court was carried away by the submission of the Public Prosecutor that the accused are the vicar and parishioner of a church and influence the witnesses and interfering the investigation if released on bail. It is contended that, even accepting the prosecution allegations, all offences, except the offence under Section 3(1)(e) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, are minor offences.

3. Learned Counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the incident did not occur in the manner submitted and the 4th respondent's husband having been assaulted with the knowledge that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste, the court below was fully justified in dismissing the bail application.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor also supported the contention of the 4th respondent and submitted that the bail application was rejected after considering all aspects.

5. For the purpose of considering the bail application, I need not delve into the question as to how exactly the incident had occurred. It is pertinent to note that the offences alleged are under Sections 323 and 342 r/w 34 IPC and 3(1)(e) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The offences under Sections 323 and 342 IPC are punishable with the imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or both and are bailable offences. No doubt, the offence under Section 3(1)(e) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years. But, that, by itself, is no reason to deny bail to the petitioner, who has been in custody since 28.01.2023. In my considered opinion, release of the appellant will not hamper the investigation and his continued remand will serve no purpose.

In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the following directions are issued;

(i) Appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

(ii) Appellant shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) Appellant shall not attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.