While refusing to grant bail to an accused Sub-Inspector in an alleged case of honour killing, the Madras High Court has held that such matters remain a serious issue in Indian society. The High Court further held that in such grave offences as honour killing, bail is a carefully guarded exception.

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, to set aside the dismissal order and enlarge the appellant-petitioner on bail.

The Single Bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar held, “The Hon'ble Supreme Court has again and again reiterated that honour killing is a ''blight on Indian society'' emphasizing that the accused involves in such cases are generally not entitled to bail and these crimes should be viewed with extreme severity due to their premeditated nature, the violation of fundamental constitutional rights and the intent to enforce regressive social norms. Honour killing remains a serious issue in Indian society, prompting ongoing judicial concern and reform, Courts uphold constitutional liberties, applying strict scrutiny to ensure justice. In grave offences like honour killing, bail is a carefully guarded exception, balancing liberty with justice and societal order. Judicial vigilance and societal awareness are crucial in eradicating the heinous crime.”

Senior Counsel N.Anantha Padmanabhan represented the Appellant while Government Advocate B.Thanga Aravindh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased and the appellant's daughter were school friends and lovers for some years. The second respondent/de facto complainant belongs to the Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, and the second respondent’s son, Kavin, as well as the appellant /second accused's daughter, Subashini, are friends. It was alleged that one day, Subashini's brother Surjith (first accused) asked Kavin to accompany him on his motorcycle as his parents wanted to meet him.

The second respondent, along with her other son and brother, later found that the first accused abused in filthy language using caste name, took a sickle from his back and gave a blow aiming at his head, which was shielded by the said Kavin with his hand. The first accused allegedly followed him and gave indiscriminate blows to the body of Kavin. After quenching his anger, he shouted at the second respondent to take the body of her son. It was thus claimed that the first accused killed the second respondent's son brutally. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered against three persons including the appellant herein under Sections 296(b), 103(1) and 49 BNS read with Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased and the appellant's daughter were school friends and lovers for some years before the occurrence. The Bench also noticed that the appellant and the third accused are working as Sub Inspector of Police and that the third accused is still absconding. “As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the appellant's daughter Subashini in her statement would admit her love affairs with the deceased. According to the prosecution as well as the second respondent, it is a clear case of honour killing”, it stated.

The Bench also added, “The mere filing of a charge sheet and taking cognizance of the case are not sufficient grounds for granting bail to the accused in such a brutal murder case.”

The Bench further explained that honour killing continues to plague Indian society despite constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and freedom of marriage. “When a boy and girl loves each other and marry against family or societal wishes, it sometimes leads to lethal violence by family members or relatives in the name of ''honour'' and it poses a serious challenge to law and justice”, the order read.

The Bench also highlighted that the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has described honour killings as the ''most drastic and draconian act''. “Honour killing is an outrage on humanity and the ''most dishonorable act known'', emphasizing that personal freedoms cannot be curtailed by regressive social norms”, it held.

Considering the gravity of the charges levelled and the role played by the appellant as stated by the prosecution and taking note of the serious objections raised by the second respondent's side, the Court upheld the order dismissing the bail plea and dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (Case No.: Crl.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2025)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Counsel N.Anantha Padmanabhan, M/s.APN Law Associates

Respondent: Government Advocate (Crl. Side) B.Thanga Aravindh, Advocate B.Mohan

Click here to read/download Order


Madras High CourtJustice K. Murali Shankar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.