The Madras High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, after finding serious irregularities in the investigation and a complete absence of medical corroboration for the alleged gang rape. The judgment underscores that procedural fairness and evidentiary rigor must prevail even in cases involving sensitive statutory provisions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Surya @ Kasivu, is the third accused in Crime No.37 of 2024, registered at Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District, for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 392, 376(D), and 506(ii) IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(w)(i), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. The alleged offence occurred on 29.01.2024, when the de facto complainant, PW1, was attacked while attending nature’s call near Idaichiyurani Vilakku on her way to Jeyanthi Hospital in Aruppukottai. She was accompanied by PW2, her sister’s husband, who is a Police Constable. The appellant was arrested on 03.02.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since.
Key Facts
- The de facto complainant, PW1, is a resident of Nerinjipatti Village, Kamuthi Taluk, approximately 20 km from the place of occurrence.
- PW2, the complainant’s sister’s husband, is a Police Constable, though there is a dispute over whether he is posted in Sivagangai Town Police Station or the Armed Reserve.
- The incident was reported on 31.01.2024, two days after the alleged occurrence.
- The prosecution alleges that the appellant and two others surrounded PW1, committed rape, robbed Rs.3,000, and took photographs to intimidate her.
- The medical examination conducted on PW1 revealed no injury or trauma consistent with sexual assault.
- The appellant is a stranger to PW1 and PW2, and there is no evidence establishing his knowledge of their caste.
- The case was registered under the SC/ST (POA) Act despite no clear evidence that the accused were aware of the victim’s Scheduled Caste status.
Procedural History
- 29.01.2024: Alleged incident occurred.
- 31.01.2024: FIR registered as Crime No.37 of 2024.
- 03.02.2024: Appellant arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
- 28.11.2025: Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Ramanathapuram, dismissed the appellant’s bail application (Cr.M.P.No.1005 of 2025).
- 16.03.2026: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(1) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, as amended by Act 1 of 2026, heard before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant: The counsel argued that the case was fabricated due to an illicit relationship between PW1 and PW2. The registration of the case under the SC/ST (POA) Act was arbitrary, as the accused had no knowledge of the victim’s caste. The absence of any injury on the victim, coupled with the delayed complaint and the presence of a police constable as a companion, raised serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The investigation was mechanical and lacked due diligence.
For the Respondents: The State and the complainant’s counsel contended that the victim was subjected to gang rape and robbery, and the case was properly registered under the SC/ST (POA) Act. They maintained that the presence of PW2 as a police constable did not invalidate the complaint and that the delay in reporting was explainable due to trauma.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought bail, challenging the dismissal of his application by the Special Court. He requested release on reasonable conditions, arguing that prolonged incarceration without credible evidence violated his right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused be denied bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act when the prosecution’s case is undermined by the absence of medical evidence, a delayed complaint, and questionable registration of the offence under the Act, particularly when the accused are strangers to the victim and there is no proof of their knowledge of her caste?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on State of Maharashtra v. Suresh and K. Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue that the SC/ST (POA) Act cannot be invoked mechanically. The absence of injury, the presence of a police constable as a companion, and the lack of any prior enmity or caste-based motive rendered the case suspect. The counsel emphasized that the Act is not a shield for false complaints and that bail must be granted where the prosecution’s case is prima facie weak. The delay of two days in lodging the complaint, without any reasonable explanation, further weakened the prosecution’s credibility.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the nature of the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act is heinous and that bail should be denied as a matter of public policy. They argued that the victim’s testimony, even without medical corroboration, is sufficient to sustain prosecution. The presence of PW2 as a police constable was dismissed as irrelevant, and the delay in reporting was attributed to fear and social stigma.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the prosecution’s case and found it fundamentally flawed. The absence of any injury on the victim, despite the alleged gang rape and physical assault, was a critical red flag. The Court noted:
"The prosecution has projected this as a case of gang rape, whereas PW2, a Police Constable, is said to have accompanied PW1 at the time of occurrence. However, the complaint has been lodged after two days. The appellant and other accused are strangers to PW1 and PW2 and they may not be aware of the caste name of the PW1 and PW2."
The Court observed that the registration of the case under the SC/ST (POA) Act was not supported by any evidence indicating that the accused were aware of the victim’s Scheduled Caste status, a mandatory requirement under Section 3(1)(r) and (s). The Court further questioned the investigation’s integrity, noting that the police failed to explain how PW2, a serving constable, came to accompany the victim to a remote location on a working day.
The Court held that while the SC/ST (POA) Act is a protective statute, it cannot be used to justify detention without credible evidence. The Court emphasized that the right to liberty under Article 21 is not suspended merely because an offence under the Act is alleged. The Court distinguished this case from those involving clear, corroborated atrocities and found that the balance of convenience and likelihood of success on trial favored the appellant.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 28.11.2025 dismissing bail was set aside. The appellant is granted bail on the following conditions: (i) execution of a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties of like amount; (ii) filing of an affidavit undertaking not to commit any further offence; (iii) residing at Villuppuram and reporting daily at 10:30 a.m. to the Villuppuram Taluk Police Station; and (iv) bail to be cancelled upon violation of any condition. The appellant shall be released forthwith upon compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Automatically Denied Under SC/ST (POA) Act
- Practitioners must argue that the Act’s stringent bail provisions do not override the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.
- Where medical evidence is absent and the complaint is delayed or inconsistent, bail must be considered on merits, not denied by default.
Registration Under SC/ST (POA) Act Requires Caste Awareness
- Prosecution must establish that the accused knew or had reason to believe the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.
- Mere victim identity is insufficient; intent and awareness must be proven.
Investigative Lapses Undermine Prosecution
- Courts will scrutinize the conduct of investigating officers, especially when a police personnel is involved as a witness or companion.
- Mechanical registration of cases under the Act without proper verification invites judicial intervention.
Delay in Reporting Must Be Reasonably Explained
- A delay of more than 48 hours in lodging an FIR, particularly in sexual offences, requires a credible explanation.
- Unexplained delays weaken the prosecution’s case and may justify bail.
Medical Evidence Remains Critical
- Even in cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, absence of injury or trauma can be a decisive factor in evaluating the credibility of allegations.
- Courts will not rely solely on testimonial evidence where physical evidence contradicts it.
