Allowed

Chinnasamy v. State

Madras HC25 Aug 2020CRL OP/12879/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction to the District Judge, Special Court for SC/ST cases, to consider the petitioners bail application on the same day of surrender. The court emphasized the specific bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and the necessity of affording the victim due opportunity under Section 15(a).

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Judge, Special Court, Perambalur to consider the petitioners bail application on the same day of surrender and pass orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity

Chinnasamy Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.12879 of 2020

¶6

1.Chinnasamy
S/o.Narayanasamy
2.Selvakumar
S/o.Viswanathan
3.Suresh
S/o.Kannusamy ... Petitioners
Vs
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
V.Kalathur Police Station, Perambalur District,
(Crime No.448 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the District Judge, Special Court for the Trial Of Cases Under Sc/St (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, Perambalur to consider the bail application of the petitioners on the same day in the event of their surrender and to dispose the same in accordance with law in Crime No.448 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioners: M/s.T.Dharani

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶11

O R D E R This petition is filed for a direction to the District Judge, Special Court for the Trial Of Cases Under Sc/St (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, Perambalur to consider the petitioners' bail petition on the same day of their surrender in connection with Crime No.448 of 2020, since the offences are pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶14

3.In view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also taking into consideration of the possibility of misusing the pious intention of the Parliament against innocent persons, there shall be a direction to the District Judge, Special Court for the Trial Of Cases Under Sc/St (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, Perambalur, to consider the petitioners' bail application, preferably on the same day of their surrender in connection with Crime No. 448 of 2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the victim under Section 15(a) of the SC/ST Act. The petitioners shall surrender before the concerned jurisdictional Court within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶15

In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition

¶16

stands allowed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶17

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

gbi To 1. The District Judge, Special Court for the Trial Of Cases, U/n SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Perambalur. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3. The Inspector of Police, V.Kalathur Police Station, Perambalur District.

¶19

CRL.O.P.No.12879 of 2020

¶20

ad[co] srg 07/10/2020

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Chinnasamy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnasamy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Sivakumaran Vs Rajkumar Jain

T.Vasantha Vs State Rep by

Ramesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Sabari Kumaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Indus Towers Limited Vs the Commissioner of Police

S.Menaka Vs State Rep by