Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Murali Shankar, J
Lakshmana Kandhan @ Karuppasamy @ Karuppaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai Division, Tirunelveli District. – Respondent
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.1126 & 1154 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Maheswaran
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Gnana Sekaran, Mr.I.Pinaygash

Breach of bail conditions warrants cancellation of bail and dismissal of discharge applications; compliance is mandatory to ensure judicial integrity.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227, 437(5), and 374(2) - Cancellation of bail - The appellant sought to challenge the order of cancellation of bail and dismissal of the discharge application - The court highlighted that bail, once granted, may not be cancelled mechanically unless conditions are violated or misused - The appellant's failure to comply with bail conditions and absence from court hearings justified the dismissal of the bail application as well as the discharge petition. (Paras 1, 3, 18 and 19)

(B) Criminal Law - Principles regarding compliance with bail conditions - It is mandatory for the accused to comply with the conditions laid out in the bail order - Non-compliance, such as failure to report to the police, grants grounds for cancellation of bail or denial of discharge petitions. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the cancellation of bail and dismissal of a discharge petition after being accused in a murder case, asserting that his life was threatened and that there were issues with the bail conditions that were not clear. The prosecution argued that the appellant violated his bail conditions and was involved in multiple prior offenses.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the appellant had failed to adhere to the conditions imposed for his bail and remained absent from trial proceedings, thus justifying the cancellation of bail and the dismissal of his discharge application.

Issues: The main issues included whether the conditions for bail were clear and if the appellant's life threats justified his non-compliance with conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that breach of bail conditions, especially failure to appear as directed, justifies the cancellation of bail, citing established precedents that non-compliance poses a risk to judicial order and proceedings.

Result: Both appeals were dismissed, with the appellant directed to surrender to the trial court within a specified time frame.

Table of Content
1. the court canceled bail due to non-compliance with conditions. (Para 1 , 2 , 18)
2. the appellant's previous criminal record was scrutinized in decisions. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments centered around the necessity of bail conditions compliance. (Para 8 , 9 , 14)

COMMON JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal in CRL.A.(MD)No.1126 of 2025 is directed against the order made in CRL.M.P.No.111 of 2025 in S.C.No.75 of 2024 dated 09.09.2025, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (PCR), Tirunelveli, cancelling the bail granted to the appellant / Accused No.14.

2.The Criminal Appeal in CRL.A.(MD)No.1154 of 2025 is directed against the order made in CRL.M.P.No.250 of 2025 in S.C.No.75 of 2024 dated 16.09.2025, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (PCR), Tirunelveli, dismissing the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3.The appellant in both the appeals is the 14^th accused in S.C.No.75 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (PCR), Tirunelveli, 4.On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent / defacto complainant in both the appeals, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.302 of 2024 on 20.05.2024 under Section 302 of IPC against unknown persons stating that his brother was murdered. After initial investigation, the case was altered for the offences under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 302, 34 & 341 of IPC r/w. Section 3(2)(v) of SC / ST Act. After completing the investigation, the first respondent laid a final report against 18 accused including the appellant for the offences under Section 302, 147, 148, 341, 120(b) & 34 of IPC r/w. Section 3(2)(v) of SC / ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.75 of 2024 and is pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, (PCR), Tirunelveli.

5.Before filing of the charge sheet, 8 accused including the appellant herein moved an application for bail before the Sessions Court in Cr.M.P.No.3136 of 2024 and 3293 of 2024 and the learned Sessions Judge after enquiry passed an order granting bail to the petitioners therein and directed the petitioners 5 to 8 to stay at Thiruvannamalai and to appear and sign before the SHO, Cheyyar Police Station, daily at 09.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders and they were also directed to file an affidavit mentioning the address where they were going to stay at Thiruvannamalai district.

6.When the above Sessions case in S.C.No.75 of 2024 was pending, as NBW was pending against some of the accused, the first respondent Assistant Commissioner of Police Palayamkottai division filed a petition under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to the appellant / Accused No.14 in Cr.M.P.No.111 of 2025, alleging that the appellant was released on bail as per the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3136 of 2024 dated 11.09.2024 and accordingly, he was released from jail on 04.11.2024, that the appellant has not signed before the Cheyyar Police Station as directed in the bail order and that the appellant was involved in the following five cases:

(i) Cr.No.332 of 2023, in Munneerpallam Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(4), 302, 341, 506(2) IPC @ 114, 120(b), 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 34, 341, 506(ii) of IPC;

(ii) Cr.No.258 of 2024, in Munneerpallam Police Station for the offences under Sections 294(b), 307, 353 & 506(ii) of IPC;

(iii) Cr.No.153 of 2019 in Pathamadai Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 3431, 506(ii) of IPC r/w.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act;

(iv) Cr.No.119 of 2024, in Moontradaippu Police Station for the offences under Section 379 of IPC;

(v) Cr.No.299 of 2019, in Pettai Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 506(ii) of IPC, r/w. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act @ 4(b) of IES Act, 109, 114, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 302, 506(ii) of IPC r/w. 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASK.Murali Shankar, JLakshmana Kandhan @ Karuppasamy @ Karuppaiah – AppellantVersusState of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai Division, Tirunelveli District. – RespondentCRL.A.(MD)Nos.1126 & 1154 of 2025

Breach of bail conditions warrants cancellation of bail and dismissal of discharge applications; compliance is mandatory to ensure judicial integrity.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Murali Shankar, J
Lakshmana Kandhan @ Karuppasamy @ Karuppaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Palayamkottai Division, Tirunelveli District. – Respondent
CRL.A.(MD)Nos.1126 & 1154 of 2025