Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail Order and Cancels Bail in Case Involving Murder of Material Witness

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan heard appeals by the defacto complainant challenging the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court’s April 9, 2025 order that had granted bail to accused persons in a 2020 caste‑based assault case and directed a joint trial of that case with a subsequent 2022 murder case. The appeals questioned the High Court’s grant of bail despite prior cancellation orders, alleged misuse of bail culminating in the murder of a material witness, and the direction for a joint trial.

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals, set aside the impugned High Court judgment dated April 9, 2025, and annulled the bail granted to the respondents/accused. The Court held that the High Court’s order was vitiated by “perversity, arbitrariness and non‑application of mind” in failing to consider prior cancellation of bail, the subsequent murder of a key witness and the attendant risk to the fairness of trial. The Court emphasised the statutory right of victims to be heard under the SC/ST (POA) Act but found no complete denial of that right in the present proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The impugned judgment passed by the High Court suffers from such fatal infirmities. A determinative factor completely ignored by the High Court is that the respondents / accused were earlier enlarged on bail by the trial Court, and that such bail was subsequently cancelled owing to grave supervening circumstances. These included the death of Suresh, a material witness in Crime No. 39 of 2020 and registration of Crime No. 202 of 2022, indicating intimidation of witnesses and attempts to derail the trial. These facts were not peripheral or collateral. They went to the root of the issue of misuse of liberty and threat to the fairness of trial. The High Court, however, failed even to advert to these aspects, let alone analyse their impact on the entitlement of the respondents / accused to bail. The omission to consider prior cancellation of bail and demonstrated abuse of liberty renders the impugned judgment manifestly perverse.” The Court also noted that “Section 15A(5) ... incorporates the principle of audi alteram partem for victims under the SC/ST (POA) Act,” stressing that the statutory right to be heard required notice and opportunity but did not entitle the victim to a favourable order on every submission.

Background The dispute arose from an incident on February 24, 2020, when the appellant, Lakshmanan, and his friend Suresh were allegedly assaulted with deadly weapons while fencing agricultural land in Melur Taluk, Madurai District. The FIR in Crime No. 39 of 2020 charged multiple persons under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 379 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. The accused obtained bail during investigation; while on bail some of them were later accused of murdering Suresh on December 18, 2022, leading to Crime No. 202 of 2022. The trial Court cancelled earlier bail in March 2023 following findings of misuse of bail and intimidation; the accused surrendered and faced several bail applications, many of which were dismissed. The High Court, however, in the impugned April 9, 2025 order allowed the accused’s appeals, granted bail subject to conditions and directed a joint trial of both cases after committal formalities. The defacto complainant challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined statutory provisions including Section 15A of the SC/ST (POA) Act and provisions on joinder and joint trials (Sections 218–223 Cr.P.C. and corresponding BNSS provisions). It accepted that the victim had been permitted to participate in bail proceedings, so there was no total denial of the statutory right under Section 15A(5). Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the High Court had ignored determinative facts — the prior cancellation of bail and the murder of a material witness — and had not applied its mind to the gravity of offences, antecedents, and threat to witnesses. The Court further held that the High Court erred in directing a joint trial at the bail stage without assessing statutory conditions or leaving the matter to the trial Court’s threshold discretion. The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, bail was cancelled and the respondents were directed to surrender within two weeks. The Supreme Court earlier granted interim stay (May 5, 2025) on the High Court’s joint trial direction pending final hearing.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1483 (Criminal Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6647-6650 of 2025) Case Title: Lakshmanan v. State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior counsel for the appellant (name not specified in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for State and other respondents (names not specified in judgment)