JUDGMENT : A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant, seeking to set aside the order dated 30.09.2019, made in Crl. M.P. No. 78/2019, by the Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Act cases, Namakkal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that as per the complaint given by the defacto complainant Pannerselvam who is the Secretary in VCK party is that on 04.09.2019 he had received a whatsapp message in which the accused had uploaded a photo of him stamping on the picture of his party leader. Based on his complaint a case in Crime No. 244 of 2019 was registered by the respondent police for offence under Section 153(a), 505(2) (c) IPC and section 3(1) (t) of SC/ST (POA) amendment Act, 2015 and on the same day the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court for bail in Crl. M.P. No. 78 of 2019 and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2019. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 04.09.2019 and he is in custody for more than 58 days. He would further submit that investigation in this case has been over. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed for granting of bail by stating that the petitioner had taken photos of himself stamping the poster of the political leader who is also a sitting M.P. and uploaded the same in social media to defame the leader and create enemity between two communities. Due to such act he has created enemity between two community groups and also created law and order problem in the area. The petitioner belongs to upper caste community and he has specifically done this act against a political leader and M.P. who belongs to Schedule Caste community. He further submitted that investigation is pending and till date agitations are going on in that area against the act of the petitioner. 5. This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials placed before this court. 6. The de-facto complainant was directed to be impleaded and private notice was ordered and the 1st respondent police was also directed to intimate the de-facto complainant. 5. This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials placed before this court. 6. The de-facto complainant was directed to be impleaded and private notice was ordered and the 1st respondent police was also directed to intimate the de-facto complainant. Despite notice, intimation and name printed in the cause list there is no representation for the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant. Affidavit of service is filed. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, the criminal appeal is allowed and the Appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Appellant is ordered to be released on bail, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Act Cases, Namakkal. (b) The appellant and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bonds and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar Cards or Bank Pass Books to ensure their identities. (c) The appellant shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the trial Court that he will not indulge in such activities in future. (d) The appellant shall stay at Nagercoil and report before Vadasery Police Station every day at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (e) The appellant shall not enter the Namagiripet Police Station limits until further orders. (f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala, (2005) AIR SCW 5560.