Murder Accused Who Failed To Report To Police Or Appear In Court After Release Stays In Custody As Madras HC Upholds Bail Denial

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to grant bail warranted appellate interference, having regard to the appellant’s prior non-compliance with bail conditions, alleged absconding, and the stage of the trial.

The court held

The Court held that the appellant had not shown grounds for interfering with the Trial Court’s refusal of bail.

It also directed

It dismissed the criminal appeal and left the impugned order undisturbed.

01Facts

The appellant, arrayed as A2, was charged with participating in the murder of Deepak Raja and was prosecuted in S.C. No.75 of 2024.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1–5

The Trial Court granted him bail on 11 September 2024, subject to conditions that he reside in Kanchipuram and report twice daily to Cheyyar Police Station.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1–5

After his release from detention under the Goondas Act in June 2025, he did not comply with those conditions.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1–5

The Trial Court cancelled bail on 28 October 2025; the appellant’s challenge to that cancellation was dismissed by the High Court on 19 June 2026. He surrendered on 11 November 2025 and remained in custody. The Trial Court dismissed his subsequent bail application, prompting this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

pp. 2–5, 8–10 · ¶ 1–5, 11–15

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court’s refusal to grant bail warranted appellate interference, having regard to the appellant’s prior non-compliance with bail conditions, alleged absconding, and the stage of the trial.

pp. 8–10 · ¶ 12–15

ii.2. Whether, in light of Sheik Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra, cancellation of bail based on failure to report to a police station was unjustified in the circumstances of this case.

p. 8 · ¶ 12

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended, which provides for an appeal against an order concerning 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 direction to report to a police station may be untenable, and that non-compliance alone may not justify cancellation where the accused regularly attends court.

p. 8 · ¶ 12

The Court distinguished that decision on the facts: the appellant here had not appeared before either the police or the Trial Court after release.

p. 8 · ¶ 12

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

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302

04Reasoning

The Court found that the appellant had failed to comply with the reporting and residence conditions from the time he was released, and that the bail cancellation had already been upheld in the appellant’s earlier appeal.

p. 8, 10 · ¶ 11, 15

His asserted fear for his life was unsupported by material, while the prosecution and de facto complainant alleged absconding, witness intimidation, and conduct that had delayed the trial.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 13–15

Charges had not yet been framed, despite the charge sheet having been filed in 2024 and an earlier direction for expeditious disposal. The Court therefore considered release at that stage inconsistent with the progress of the trial.

pp. 9–10 · ¶ 13–15

It distinguished Sheik Irshad because, unlike the accused in that case, the appellant had not regularly attended court.

p. 8 · ¶ 12