An individual cannot be denied bail solely based on a co-accused's confession; direct evidence is required to substantiate involvement in the crime.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2557 of 2025 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode and consequently enlarge the appellant on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2025, while the deceased, Chanakya @ John, along with his wife Saranya/de facto complainant, was travelling by car from Salem towards Tiruppur, the appellant, along with other accused, intercepted and dashed their vehicle against the car of the deceased near Nasiyanur. The accused persons, having conspired together with the intent to commit murder, brutally assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons (knives/machetes) in the presence of his wife/de facto complainant. The deceased died on the spot due to the multiple fatal injuries sustained during the attack.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No. 137 of 2025 was registered at the Chithode Police Station, Erode District. The case was initially registered against Jeevagan (A-1) and 9 others, including the appellant herein, namely (1)Saravanan, (2)Sathish @ Surya, (3)Karthi, (4)Monnaiyan [appellant] (5)Boopalan, (6) Alagarasan @ Alaguraj , (7)Kunda Boopalan, (8)Vicky @ Kunda Balu, and (9)Sivakumar @ Gundu Siva, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1)

& 103 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

4. During the course of the investigation, it was established that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste (SC) community. Consequently, the case was altered to include the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The respondents have since completed the investigation and filed a final report against 14 persons, including the appellant, under Sections 109(1), 49, 61(2), 3(5), 103(1), 238(a), 336(3) & 324(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

5. The specific allegation against the appellant (A-10) is that he travelled along with the other accused in a car, got down at a particular place, monitored the movements of the deceased and provided real-time information to A-1. The appellant previously filed a bail application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in Crl.M.P.No.2557 of 2025. The learned Judge dismissed the said application by order dated 15.10.2025. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the said order. 6. Mr.T.Saikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the appellant has been arrayed as A-10 in this case. He would contend that the appellant was not present at the time of occurence and has been falsely implicated solely based on the confession of A-1. Even as per the alleged confession, the only role attributed to the appellant is that he informed A-1 about the movements of the deceased.

7. The learned counsel would further submit that other than being a friend of A-1, the appellant has no role in this case. While there was admitted previous enmity between A-1 and the deceased, the respondent Police, acting on a mere apprehension, have implicated the appellant without any corroborative evidence. He would reiterate that there is no overt act attributed to the appellant other than the alleged communication, and he remains implicated only on the basis of confession of a co- accused, which is inadmissible in the absence of independent recovery or evidence.

8. He would further submit that a similarly placed accused, Alagarasan @ Alaguraj (A-7), filed a bail appeal i