Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71682

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Thro – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Anantha Padmanabhan
For the Respondents: B. Thanga Aravindh, B. Mohan

In honour killing cases, the principle 'bail not jail' is inapplicable; courts must apply strict scrutiny and generally deny bail due to premeditation, societal harm, and risk of witness tampering.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 - Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s), 3(2)(v) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 296(b), 103(1), 49 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail - Honour killing - Principles governing bail in heinous offences - In cases of honour killing, the basic rule 'bail not jail' does not apply; instead, the approach should be 'jail and jail' - Courts must apply strict scrutiny due to premeditated nature, violation of fundamental rights, and intent to enforce regressive social norms - Bail is a carefully guarded exception, balancing liberty with justice and societal order. (Paras 15-18)

(B) Investigation - Scope of judicial review - Allegations of improper investigation by police, especially in caste-based atrocities - Victims of crime, particularly from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, face insurmountable hurdles in accessing justice - Fear of retribution, police apathy, shoddy investigations lead to low conviction rates - Courts must remain vigilant to ensure fair investigation and prevent witness tampering. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The second respondent, a member of the Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, lodged a complaint alleging that her son Kavin Selvaganesh was brutally murdered by the first accused (son of the appellant) using a sickle, with caste-based abuse. The appellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police belonging to the Hindu Maravar community, is the father of the first accused. The prosecution case is that the deceased and the appellant's daughter were in a love relationship, and the murder was an honour killing. The appellant was arrested and his bail plea was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The present appeal challenges that dismissal. The appellant claimed he was on duty at a different location at the time of occurrence. The second respondent opposed bail, alleging the appellant played an active role before and after the murder, including being present at the scene, instructing deletion of phone contacts, and influencing the investigation. The investigating agency (CBCID) filed a final report, but the second respondent alleged the investigation was biased and sought further investigation. The third accused (appellant's wife, also a police officer) remained absconding.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that honour killing is a 'blight on Indian society' and an outrage on humanity. It relied on the Supreme Court's observation in S.Yuvaraj v. State that in honour killing cases, the rule should be 'jail and jail' rather than 'bail not jail'. The court found that the appellant was present at the occurrence place as per the statement of a head constable, and that mere filing of a charge sheet is not sufficient to grant bail in a brutal murder case. Considering the gravity of the charges, the role of the appellant, and the serious objections by the second respondent regarding witness tampering and further investigation, the court declined to grant bail and affirmed the dismissal order.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant, being the father of the prime accused and a police officer, is entitled to bail in a case of honour killing involving caste-based atrocities. 2. Whether the principles of 'bail not jail' apply to heinous offences like honour killing. 3. Whether the allegations of improper investigation and potential interference with witnesses justify denial of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that honour killing is a serious and premeditated crime that violates constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and freedom of marriage. In such cases, bail is not the rule but an exception to be granted only under strict scrutiny. The presence of the appellant at the scene, his police background, and the risk of tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses weigh heavily against granting bail. The court emphasized that societal order and justice require that accused in honour killing cases be kept in custody pending trial. Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.483 of 2025 dated 29.10.2025 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli, in dismissing the petition for bail filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent / defacto complainant belongs to Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, that the second respondent had two sons Kavin Selvaganesh and Pravin Selkar, that the said Kavin Selvaganesh, after completing B.E., was working in TCS IT, Duraipakkam, Chennai, that the appellant / second accused's daughter Subashini is working as a therapist at Vedha Clinic, Palayamkottai, that the said Subashini and Kavin Selvaganesh are friends from school days, that the appellant belongs to Hindu Maravar community, that since the second respondent's father Muthumalai had fallen down and was taking treatment at Edison Hospital, Tiruchendur, the second respondent, her brother and her two sons visited the said Subashini for consulting her about the treatment required to be given, that all of them went to meet the said Subashini on 27.07.2025 at about 02.30 p.m. and when they were consulting with the said Subashini, the said Subashini's brother Surjith (first accused) came there and asked the said Kavin Selvaganesh to accompany him in his motorcycle as his parents wanted to meet him and hence, both of them left the clinic, that after some time, the second respondent along with her other son and brother while proceeding near Ashtalakshmi Nagar 1^st Street, they found the said Kavin Selvaganesh and the first accused were standing at Mangammal Salai, KTC Nagar and stopped their vehicle, that when the second respondent and others were proceeding towards the said Kavin Selvaganesh, the first accused abused in filthy language using caste name, took a sickle from his back and gave a blow aiming at his head, which was shielded by the said Kavin Selvaganesh with his hand and started to run but the first accused followed him and gave indiscriminate blows on the body of the said Kavin Selvaganesh and after quenching his anger, shouted at the second respondent to take the body of her son and that the first accused killed the second respondent's son brutally.

3. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.396 of 2025 on the file of Palayamkottai Police Station against three persons including the appellant herein under Sections 296(b), 103(1) and 49 BNS r/w Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and subsequently, as per the directions of the Director General of Police dated 30.07.2025, the case was transferred to the CBCID – South, Tirunelveli and FIR came to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2025 on 31.07.2025 for the offences under Sections 296(b), 103(1) and 49 BNS r/w Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

4. It is not in dispute that the first respondent police, after completing the investigation, filed a final report against four persons including the appellant herein and the same was taken on file in S.C.No. 120 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is the father, the third accused is the mother and the fourth accused is the relative of the first accused. It is also not in dispute that the appellant and the third accused are working as Sub Inspector of Police and that the third accused is still absconding.

5. It is evident from the records that the appellant moved a petition for bail under Section 483 BNSS in Crl.M.P.No.483 of 2025 before the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli and the learned Sessions Judge, after enquiry, passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 dismissing the bail petition. Ag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71682

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKARSaravanan – AppellantVersusThe State of Tamilnadu Thro – RespondentCrl.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2025

In honour killing cases, the principle 'bail not jail' is inapplicable; courts must apply strict scrutiny and generally deny bail due to premeditation, societal harm, and risk of witness tampering.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Thro – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2025