Madras HC Denies Bail To Murder Accused Who Never Reported To Police Or Appeared In Trial After Release

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 unchallenged order cancelling bail.

The court held

The Court held that the appellant had shown no reason for appellate interference with the order dismissing his bail application.

It also directed

It dismissed the criminal appeal; no bail was granted.

01Facts

The appellant, arrayed as A4, was charged with participating in the murder of Deepak Raja on 20 May 2024.

pp. 2–6, 8–9

After the charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as S.C. No. 75 of 2024, the appellant was granted bail subject to conditions including residence in Villupuram District and twice-daily reporting to the police.

pp. 2–6, 8–9

He was released from prison on 14 June 2025 but did not comply with the conditions.

pp. 2–6, 8–9

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

pp. 2–6, 8–9

After a non-bailable warrant was issued, he was taken into custody in this case on 11 May 2026.

pp. 2–6, 8–9

The Trial Court subsequently dismissed his fresh bail application, prompting this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

pp. 2–6, 8–9

The appellant attributed his non-compliance to a claimed life threat and relied on Sheik Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra; the State and de facto complainant opposed bail, citing his non-compliance, alleged absconding and witness intimidation, criminal antecedents, and delay in framing charges.

pp. 3–9

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 unchallenged order cancelling bail.

pp. 8–10

ii.2. Whether the principle in Sheik Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra required a different result where the appellant had not appeared before the police or the Trial Court after release and charges had not yet been framed.

p. 8

03Law Applied

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

p. 1

The Court considered Sheik Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185, in which the Supreme Court observed that, after filing of the charge sheet and commencement of trial, a police-station reporting condition may be prima facie untenable and cancellation of bail merely for non-appearance at the police station may not be justified where the accused regularly attends court.

p. 8

The Court treated the appellant’s circumstances as materially different, noting his failure to appear before either the police or the Trial Court and the fact that the earlier bail-cancellation order remained unchallenged.

pp. 8–10

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 in that case, the appellant had not appeared before the police or the Trial Court after his release.

p. 8

It also found that the claimed life threat was unsupported by relevant material, while the prosecution submissions indicated non-compliance, absconding and delay in the proceedings; charges had still not been framed despite the earlier direction for an expeditious trial.

pp. 8–9

Given these circumstances and the unchallenged order cancelling the appellant’s earlier bail, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Trial Court’s refusal of a fresh bail application.

p. 10