Deepak Raja Murder Accused Remains In Custody As Madras HC Upholds Bail Denial, Citing Missed Police Check-Ins And Charges Not Yet Framed

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to grant bail warranted interference, given the appellant’s failure to comply with his earlier bail conditions and the prior cancellation of bail.

The court held

The Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the Trial Court’s refusal of bail.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the criminal appeal.

01Facts

The appellant, arrayed as A14 in a prosecution arising from the murder of Deepak Raja, was arrested on 31 May 2024 and granted bail on 11 September 2024 subject to conditions that he reside in Kanchipuram and report twice daily to Cheyyar Police Station.

¶ 2, 9–10

He was released from prison on 4 November 2024 but did not comply with the reporting condition; the prosecution also alleged that he absconded, was involved in another offence, and that witnesses were threatened.

¶ 3, 9, 11

The Trial Court cancelled his bail on 9 September 2025, and this Court dismissed his challenge to that cancellation on 28 November 2025.

¶ 3, 5, 7, 15

After surrendering on 4 February 2026, the appellant sought bail, which the Trial Court refused on 30 June 2026. He appealed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

opening · ¶ 1, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to grant bail warranted interference, given the appellant’s failure to comply with his earlier bail conditions and the prior cancellation of bail.

¶ 11–15

ii.2. Whether the appellant’s asserted life threat and reliance on Sheik Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra justified granting bail despite his non-appearance and the stage of the trial.

¶ 4, 12–14

03Law Applied

Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, provides the appellate route invoked to challenge the bail order.

opening

In Sheik Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185, the Supreme Court observed that, in the circumstances of that case—where the charge sheet had been filed, trial had commenced, and the accused regularly attended court—a direction to report to a police station was prima facie not tenable, and cancellation of bail solely for non-compliance with that direction might not be justified.

¶ 12

The judgment treated the appellant’s complete failure to report or attend court, the prior cancellation of bail, and the risk to progress of the trial as material to the bail determination.

¶ 12–15

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302

04Reasoning

The Court distinguished Sheik Irshad because, unlike the accused there, the appellant had not appeared at the police station or before the Trial Court after his release.

¶ 12

His asserted life threat was unsupported by relevant material, while the record showed that he had failed to comply with the bail condition even once and that his bail had already been cancelled; the challenge to that cancellation had also been dismissed.

¶ 11, 13, 15

The Court further noted that charges had not yet been framed despite an earlier direction for expeditious trial, and concluded that release at that stage would not be conducive to the trial’s speedy disposal.

¶ 13–14