Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Mr. Govindaraj, Ms. Saranya, Ms. D. Panchami (referred to as A1‑A3) filed CRL OP No. 25128 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
  • Respondent: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District (Crime No. 0419 of 2025).
  • Charges: Offences under Sections 296(b) and 115(2) of the BNSS, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
  • Incident (as per FIR and complainant’s statement): On 26‑08‑2026, at about 18:00 hrs, the complainant Keerthika (25‑year‑old engineering graduate, employee of Sri Vaari Knitwear) was asked by the first petitioner to bring a laptop, bag and programme sheet to the Uthukuli unit. While she was in the first petitioner’s room (B Block, Goundampalayam), he verbally abused her with caste‑based slurs, struck her on the left cheek and upper lip (causing bleeding and a broken tooth tip), and forced her to place her thumb on his mobile phone. The second and third petitioners entered the room, also abused her in filthy language and beat her on the cheek and arms. Six other employees later intervened; one took her home. She was admitted to Government Medical College Hospital, Tiruppur on the morning of 27‑08‑2026, and her statement was recorded at 23:00 hrs on the same day.
  • Investigation: Eight witnesses examined; none of the petitioners arrested; no prior case against them. The first petitioner belongs to the Mudhaliyar community (non‑SC/ST); the second petitioner belongs to the Hindu Paraiyar community (Scheduled Caste); the third petitioner claims Nayar community (forward) but an affidavit suggests she may belong to a Scheduled Caste – no certificate filed.
  • Counsel: Petitioners’ counsel argued the complaint is a counter‑blast and questioned the delay of 29 hours in FIR registration and the change of alleged location from Palayakadu to Uthukuli. The Government Advocate opposed only the first petitioner’s bail, noting specific caste abuse and hospitalization.

Legal Reasoning

1. Applicability of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act – The bar under Section 18 (now read with Section 482 BNSS) applies only where a prima facie case under the Act is made out. The court referenced Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024) for the test.

2. Second Petitioner – As a member of a Scheduled Caste, she cannot be charged under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) or 3(2)(va) which require the accused not to be a SC/ST member. Hence, no SC/ST offence is attributable; the bar does not apply; bail petition is maintainable.

3. Third Petitioner – Community status uncertain; no caste‑based words attributed to her; the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) not attracted; Section 3(2)(va) requires knowledge of victim’s caste, which is absent. Therefore, the bar does not apply; bail petition is maintainable.

4. First Petitioner – Specific caste abuse (calling the complainant a “beef‑eating Paraiya caste dog”) is recorded. The offence under Section 115(2) BNSS (re‑enactment of IPC 323) coupled with caste slur satisfies the ingredients of Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. Consequently, Section 18 applies, making anticipatory bail untenable.

5. The court declined to examine evidentiary issues such as the exact location’s public view or the thumb‑impression claim, citing Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025) that the court must not delve into evidence at this stage.

Final Outcome

  • The anticipatory bail petition is dismissed as not maintainable for the first petitioner.
  • The petition is allowed (granting anticipatory bail) for the second and third petitioners, as they are not liable under the SC/ST Act and the offences against them are ordinary criminal matters.
  • The first petitioner may seek bail before the Special Court in accordance with law; investigation remains ongoing.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, SC/ST Act, Criminal Procedure