Deepak Raja Murder Accused Who Never Reported To Police After Release Denied Bail, With Charges Still Unframed: Madras HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal of bail should be set aside, given the appellant’s explanation for failing to comply with his earlier bail conditions and his reliance on Sheik Irshad @ Monu.

The court held

The Court dismissed the criminal appeal and declined to grant bail, leaving the Trial Court’s order dated 23 July 2026 undisturbed.

01Facts

The appellant, arrayed as A5 in a prosecution arising from the murder of Deepak Raja, was granted bail by the Trial Court on 11 September 2024 subject to conditions that he reside in Kanchipuram District and report twice daily to the police station.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 5–6

He was released from detention under the Goondas Act on 3 June 2025, but did not comply with those conditions.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 5–6

The Trial Court cancelled his bail on 28 October 2025; that cancellation order was not challenged.

pp. 2–3, 5, 7–8 · ¶ 3, 5–6, 9–10

After his arrest under a non-bailable warrant on 30 June 2026, the Trial Court dismissed his fresh bail application on 23 July 2026.

pp. 2–3, 5, 7–8 · ¶ 3, 5–6, 9–10

He appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

pp. 2–3, 5, 7–8 · ¶ 3, 5–6, 9–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal of bail should be set aside, given the appellant’s explanation for failing to comply with his earlier bail conditions and his reliance on Sheik Irshad @ Monu.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 12–13, 15

ii.2. Whether release on bail was appropriate when the appellant had not complied with the earlier conditions, the trial had not reached the framing of charges, and the cancellation of his earlier bail remained unchallenged.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 13–15

03Law Applied

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides the appellate route invoked against the order refusing bail.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The Court considered Sheik Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185, in which the Supreme Court observed that, in the circumstances of that case, cancellation of bail merely for non-appearance at a police station was not justified where the charge-sheet had been filed, the trial had commenced, and the accused regularly attended court.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 12

The High Court distinguished that decision on the facts before it; it did not set out a separate general test governing the grant of bail.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 12

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

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302

04Reasoning

The Court found that, after his release, the appellant had not reported to the police station or appeared before the Trial Court, and that his asserted life threat was unsupported by relevant material.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 12–15

Unlike the accused in Sheik Irshad @ Monu, the appellant had not attended court; moreover, the trial had not progressed to framing charges, amid reported delays and absconding by the appellant and other accused.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 12–15

The Court also noted that the earlier bail cancellation had not been challenged.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 12–15

In these circumstances, it found no reason to interfere with the refusal of bail.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 12–15