Honour Killings as an Exception to the “Bail, not Jail” Rule:
A Detailed Commentary on Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), 03.12.2025

I. Introduction

The decision in Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A.(MD) No. 1201 of 2025, delivered by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 03.12.2025, is a significant addition to Indian bail jurisprudence in the context of:

Honour killings based on caste and inter-community relationships;
Offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended (“SC/ST (PoA) Act”); and
The emerging framework of bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The case concerns the brutal killing of a young Dalit man, Kavin Selvaganesh, allegedly by the brother of the woman he was in a relationship with, amid opposition from the latter’s family belonging to a different (Maravar) community. The appellant, Saravanan, father of the principal accused and himself a serving police officer, is arraigned as a co-accused for his alleged role in what the Court treats as a clear honour killing.

The appeal arose under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015, challenging the order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, which had refused bail to the appellant in a case registered under:

Sections 296(b), 103(1), and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), read with
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Justice K. Murali Shankar’s judgment is notable for firmly reiterating that the broadly accepted axiom in criminal law—“bail, not jail”—does not apply in the same manner to heinous honour killing cases, particularly where caste hatred is alleged and victims belong to SC communities. Instead, in line with Supreme Court precedent, such cases warrant a “jail and jail” approach at the bail stage.

II. Factual Background

1. Parties and Communities

The de facto complainant (2nd respondent), Tamil Selvi, belongs to the Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, a Scheduled Caste.
The deceased, Kavin Selvaganesh, was her son, a B.E. graduate employed with TCS, Chennai.
The appellant, Saravanan (2nd accused), belongs to the Hindu Maravar community (a dominant OBC group in parts of Tamil Nadu).
The principal assailant is Surjith (A1), son of the appellant and brother of Subashini, who was allegedly in a romantic relationship with the deceased.
The 3rd accused (mother of A1 and wife of appellant) is also a Sub-Inspector of Police and is still absconding.

2. Alleged Occurrence

On 27.07.2025, the complainant and her family met Subashini, a therapist at Vedha Clinic, for medical advice regarding her father’s treatment. While they were at the clinic:

A1 (Surjith) arrived and asked the deceased to accompany him on a motorcycle, supposedly because his (A1’s) parents wished to meet the deceased.
Subsequently, the complainant and others saw the deceased and A1 standing at Mangammal Salai, KTC Nagar.
As they approached, A1 allegedly:
- Abused the deceased with filthy language using his caste name, indicating caste animus; and
- Attacked him with a sickle, first aiming at his head (parried by the deceased with his hand) and then by giving multiple indiscriminate blows as the deceased tried to flee.
The deceased allegedly suffered 19 cut injuries and died at the spot. A1 allegedly stated to the complainant that he had killed her son and asked her to take the body.

The prosecution’s theory, supported by the complainant’s counsel, is that this is a classic honour killing motivated by:

Inter-caste relationship: love affair between a Dalit boy and a girl from a dominant community; and
Family opposition, leading to lethal violence by the girl’s family to protect “honour”.

3. Registration and Transfer of the Case

The initial FIR was registered as Crime No.396 of 2025 at Palayamkottai Police Station.
Offences: Sections 296(b), 103(1), 49 BNS r/w Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PoA) Act.
On 30.07.2025, pursuant to directions of the Director General of Police, the case was transferred to CBCID – South, Tirunelveli.
CBCID registered a fresh FIR as Crime No.1 of 2025 on 31.07.2025 with the same set of offences.

4. Role Attributed to the Appellant (A2)

While A1 is the alleged direct assailant, the appellant (A2), his father and a Sub-Inspector of Police, is alleged to have:

Been present at the place of occurrence at the crucial time (supported, according to prosecution, by the statement of Head Constable Dinakaran Suresh Durairaj);
Played an “active role” in the commission of the offence, including:
- Having prior knowledge of the love affair;
- Allegedly instigating A1; and
- Allegedly instructing A1 to delete phone contacts and change his shirt after the incident;
Attempted to manipulate evidence and influence the police handling the case (as alleged by the de facto complainant);
Benefited from a purportedly soft investigation by the original local police (allegedly reluctant to immediately act, especially regarding A3 who remains absconding).

The appellant’s defence, on the other hand, is that:

He is innocent and was on duty at Rajapalayam on the date of occurrence as Special Sub-Inspector in the Special Battalion;
He had no knowledge of the meeting between Subashini and the deceased’s family;
He has been falsely implicated, allegedly to satisfy community leaders and give the impression of a comprehensive investigation; and
There is no specific overt act or direct evidence to connect him to the murder.

III. Procedural History and Issues

1. Procedural Posture

After investigation, CBCID filed a final report/charge-sheet against four accused, including the appellant.
The case was taken on file as S.C. No. 120 of 2025 by the II Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Tirunelveli.
The appellant filed a bail petition under Section 483 BNSS in Crl.M.P. No. 483 of 2025 before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 29.10.2025.
He then preferred the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015, which provides a statutory appeal against orders granting or refusing bail in cases under the SC/ST Act.

2. Core Legal Issues

Bail in Honour Killing Cases: Whether, in a case characterised as honour killing involving caste-based atrocity and brutal murder, the general principle “bail, not jail” applies, or whether a stricter paradigm must be followed.
Standard for Interference in Bail Orders under Section 14A: Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sessions Court’s refusal of bail, and what threshold must be met (e.g. perverse reasoning, ignoring vital materials, etc.).
Effect of Filing Charge-Sheet: Whether the mere filing of the charge-sheet and taking cognizance tilt the balance in favour of granting bail.
Risk of Tampering and Influence: How the Court should assess the risk of:
- Threatening/intimidating witnesses; and
- Influencing investigation and prosecution,
Victim’s Rights and Investigative Fairness: How concerns of the de facto complainant regarding biased or incomplete investigation, particularly in SC/ST atrocity cases, should weigh in at the stage of bail.

IV. Summary of the Judgment

1. Decision

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and refused to grant bail to the appellant, affirming the order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli.

2. Key Findings

The case is treated as a clear instance of honour killing, involving a Dalit victim and a non-SC family opposed to the inter-community relationship.
There exists prima facie material that:
- The appellant was present at the place of occurrence (supported by the statement of Head Constable Dinakaran Suresh Durairaj); and
- The appellant and his wife (A3) had an active role in the offence and its aftermath.
The Court notes that the mother (A3) is still absconding, despite being a police officer, and that no serious efforts appear to have been taken to secure her, raising concerns about the overall investigation.
The Court highlights the brutality of the murder (19 cut injuries) and the social evil of honour killings, describing them as:
“the most drastic and draconian act” … “an outrage on humanity” … “the most dishonorable act known”.
The judgment emphatically reiterates that in heinous honour killing cases, the normal rule of “bail, not jail” does not apply; instead, the appropriate approach is “jail and jail”.
The Court holds that:
“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.”
Taking into account:
- The gravity of the offences;
- The role attributed to the appellant;
- The vulnerability of the victim’s family (already under police protection);
- The continuing possibility of further investigation (as indicated by the complainant’s intention to seek further investigation); and
- The risk of tampering with witnesses and evidence, especially given the appellant’s position as a police officer;
the Court finds no reason to interfere with the Sessions Court’s refusal of bail.

V. Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan, CDJ 2021 SC 864

The Court reproduces an important passage from the Supreme Court’s decision in Hariram Bhambhi, which extensively discusses the systemic difficulties faced by SC/ST victims in the criminal justice process. The quotation highlights five critical points:

Investigations in India are largely police-centric, with victims often reduced to mere spectators.
Members of SC/ST communities face “insurmountable hurdles” from the very stage of lodging a complaint to the conclusion of trial, including:
- Fear of retribution from dominant-caste perpetrators;
- Police reluctance to register FIRs;
- Failure to accurately record allegations.
Victims and witnesses in caste atrocity cases are particularly vulnerable to:
- Intimidation;
- Violence; and
- Social and economic boycott.
Many perpetrators escape punishment due to shoddy investigation and negligence by prosecuting advocates, leading to low conviction rates under the SC/ST Act.
Low conviction rates are often mischaracterised as “misuse” of the Act; in reality, they frequently result from improper investigation and prosecution, not from false cases.

By invoking Hariram Bhambhi, the Madras High Court is underlining:

The need for heightened judicial sensitivity when SC/ST victims allege threats, manipulation, or biased investigation;
The systemic nature of obstacles faced by Dalit victims, making them especially vulnerable if the accused are influential (as here, where the accused are police officers); and
The inappropriateness of quickly assuming that such cases are false or exaggerated.

This precedent directly supports the Court’s decision to err on the side of protection of the victim’s family and the integrity of the investigation when considering bail.

2. The Supreme Court’s Approach in S. Yuvaraj v. State

The judgment references a Supreme Court decision in S. Yuvaraj v. State, involving the alleged murder of a 21-year-old Dalit boy for speaking to an upper-caste girl. The Supreme Court, in that case, set aside the grant of bail and made particularly strong observations:

Honour killings are a “blight on Indian society”;
They are among the most heinous crimes, often premeditated and committed to enforce regressive social norms against constitutionally protected rights;
In such cases, the usual maxim “bail, not jail” does not apply; instead, the Supreme Court endorsed a “jail and jail” approach.

The Madras High Court explicitly relies on this normative stance:

“In S. Yuvaraj vs. State's case… the order granting bail to the accused by the High Court was challenged… the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the basic rule 'bail not jail' does not apply to heinous honour killing crimes and in such case, it should be 'jail and jail'…”

Thus, the Court’s refusal of bail is firmly anchored in binding Supreme Court precedent that prioritises:

Deterrence;
Protection of victims and witnesses in honour killing cases;
Constitutional values of equality, dignity, and freedom of marriage/association.

3. Alignment with Broader Bail Jurisprudence

Even though not expressly cited, the reasoning aligns with general Supreme Court principles that:

Bail is not to be granted mechanically merely because the investigation is over or a charge-sheet is filed;
The Court must weigh:
- Nature and gravity of the accusation;
- Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
- Prima facie involvement of the accused;
- Likelihood of the accused fleeing justice;
- Possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses;
- The larger interests of society and the victim community.

In the present case, all these factors—in particular, the heinousness of the crime, the alleged caste motive, and the institutional position of the accused as police officers—weigh against bail.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Characterisation of the Offence as “Honour Killing”

The Court does not treat this as an ordinary murder. It accepts the prosecution and complainant’s case that:

There was a love affair between a Dalit boy and a girl from a dominant community;
The relationship was known to the girl’s parents (including the appellant) for at least two years;
The killing occurred in that context, following caste-based abuse and extreme violence.

On these facts, the Court explicitly labels the case as an honour killing and devotes a substantial passage (para 17) to discussing:

How honour killings persist despite constitutional protections of personal liberty and freedom of marriage;
The Supreme Court’s repeated condemnation of such acts as “draconian” and “an outrage on humanity”;
The need for judicial vigilance and strict scrutiny of such crimes.

This characterisation is crucial because, once the case is put in the “honour killing” category, the Court’s subsequent reasoning on bail becomes far stricter than it would be for a typical homicide case.

2. Role of the Appellant and Prima Facie Case

Contrary to the appellant’s contention that there is no material against him, the Court notes:

Head Constable Dinakaran Suresh Durairaj’s statement indicates that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time (para 15);
The prosecution asserts that:
- Both parents (A2 and A3) had prior knowledge of and strong opposition to the love affair;
- The appellant allegedly sought to erase evidence by instructing A1 to delete contacts and change clothes;
- The appellant, as a police officer, attempted to influence the investigation.

The Court does not treat these allegations as proven, but at the bail stage, the relevant test is whether there is a prima facie case and whether releasing the accused would:

Pose a serious risk to the fairness of the trial;
Lead to threats or intimidation against the victim’s family and witnesses.

In that sense, the Court finds sufficient material connecting the appellant with the occurrence, particularly in light of his:

Familial relationship with the principal assailant;
Presence at the scene (as per witness);
Professional status as a police officer, capable of exercising influence.

3. Brutality of the Crime and Gravity of Charges

The Court strongly emphasises:

The extreme brutality of the attack (19 cut injuries);
The caste-based abuse immediately preceding the killing;
The offences under both BNS and SC/ST (PoA) Act, particularly Section 3(2)(v), which specifically escalates punishment where an SC/ST person is targeted on account of caste.

The combination of:

Caste-motivated attack;
Honour killing context; and
State actors (police officers) as accused

places this case at the most serious end of the spectrum, justifying a stringent approach to bail.

4. “Bail not Jail” vs “Jail and Jail”

Traditionally, constitutional jurisprudence in India favours liberty, and courts frequently cite the maxim “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.” However, the Court holds that:

“the basic rule 'bail not jail', does not apply to heinous honour killing crimes and in such case, it should be 'jail and jail'.”

This statement is not a novel creation of the High Court; it is a direct adoption of the Supreme Court’s stance in S. Yuvaraj. The reasoning is that:

Honour killings are often premeditated;
They are intended to enforce unconstitutional social norms, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21;
They almost always involve a serious risk of continued intimidation of the victim’s family and witnesses if the accused are released.

Thus, in such cases, individual liberty of the accused must yield, at least at the pre-trial stage, to:

The safety of victims/witnesses;
The integrity of investigation and trial;
The larger constitutional mandate to eradicate caste-based violence and honour killings.

5. Filing of Charge-Sheet Not a Ground for Bail

The Court expressly rejects the notion that the mere filing of a charge-sheet and the taking of cognizance create an automatic or strong presumption in favour of bail:

“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.”

This is especially important because a common argument by accused is that once investigation is over, the risk of tampering with evidence diminishes. The Court counters this by:

Noting the de facto complainant’s expressed intention to seek further investigation, particularly on conspiracy aspects;
Recognising that even after charge-sheet, there can be:
- Attempts to threaten witnesses;
- Efforts to influence police and prosecutors;
- Possibilities of destroying or altering remaining evidence.

6. Risk of Tampering and Status of the Appellant as Police Officer

The Court attaches substantial weight to the fact that:

The appellant (A2) and his wife (A3) are both serving police officers;
A3 continues to be absconding despite the seriousness of the case;
The Inspector of the jurisdictional police station allegedly:
- Was present at the scene but did not promptly set the law in motion; and
- Allegedly mishandled the deceased’s cell phone.

This reinforces concerns that:

The local police may have been reluctant or compromised in dealing with colleagues;
If the appellant is released, he could leverage his institutional connections to:
- Discourage witnesses from testifying truthfully;
- Obstruct or dilute any further investigation;
- Influence the course of prosecution.

Here, the Court marries Hariram Bhambhi’s concerns about systemic discrimination against SC/ST victims with the concrete risk emanating from an accused who is himself part of the policing apparatus.

C. Impact and Doctrinal Significance

1. Reinforcing a Special Bail Regime for Honour Killings

This judgment consolidates a clear doctrinal line: honour killings occupy a distinct category of heinous offences for bail purposes. The Court’s reliance on S. Yuvaraj signals:

A strong presumption against bail in such cases, especially at early stages; and
That courts must not mechanically apply “bail not jail” when dealing with crimes that attack core constitutional values of equality, choice, and dignity.

2. Intersection of SC/ST (PoA) Act and BNSS Bail Jurisprudence

Though largely framed as a bail appeal, the judgment is important for how it integrates three legal regimes:

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – defining substantive offences like murder and group liability;
BNSS – replacing the old CrPC in relation to bail powers (here, Section 483 BNSS performs the role similar to Section 439 CrPC);
SC/ST (PoA) Act – adding a special statutory framework for atrocities, including:
- Enhanced punishments;
- Special courts (PCR Courts);
- Appeals under Section 14A;
- Limitations on anticipatory bail (Sections 18 and 18A).

The Court’s approach indicates that general bail principles under BNSS remain subject to the object and scheme of the SC/ST Act and the specific reprehensibility of honour killings.

3. Strengthening Victim-Centric and Community-Centric Considerations

By relying on Hariram Bhambhi, the Court implicitly acknowledges that:

Constitutional and statutory protections for SC/ST victims must shape bail decisions;
Courts should move away from a purely accused-centric focus and account for:
- Historical marginalisation;
- Threats of social and economic boycott;
- Fear of retribution;
- Structural police bias.

This judgment thus sits within an evolving trend of victim-sensitive bail jurisprudence, especially under the SC/ST Act.

4. Heightened Scrutiny Where Accused Are Police Officers

Without laying down a separate formal doctrine, the Court’s reasoning effectively holds that:

When the accused are part of the law enforcement machinery, the risk of interference with investigation and trial is inherently higher;
Therefore, courts must apply greater caution in considering bail, particularly when the victims come from SC/ST communities.

5. Signal to Trial Courts in Tamil Nadu

Given that honour killings and caste atrocities remain a persistent problem in Tamil Nadu, this decision:

Provides clear guidance to Sessions Courts and Special Courts (PCR) that honour killing cases deserve stringent scrutiny at bail stage;
Discourages leniency based on standard grounds like:
- Period of incarceration;
- Filing of charge-sheet;
- Absence of prior criminal record;
- Community or social pressure.

VI. Simplifying Key Legal Concepts

1. Honour Killing

An honour killing is a murder, typically of a young man or woman, by family or community members who believe that the victim has brought “shame” or “dishonour” on the family/community by:

Choosing a partner from another caste or religion;
Marring parental decisions about marriage;
Exercising personal autonomy in ways disapproved by the family or community.

Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, treat honour killings as among the most heinous crimes, because they:

Attack the core of personal liberty and equality protected by the Constitution;
Seek to enforce regressive customs through violence.

2. Bail and the “Bail not Jail” Principle

Bail means the release of an accused person from custody, on conditions, during the period before trial or after conviction (in some cases, pending appeal). The classical principle often cited is:

“Bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”

This principle is based on:

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty;
The importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, this is not absolute. Especially for grave offences (murder, terrorism, sexual offences, honour killings) and where strong risks exist (threats to witnesses, tampering of evidence), courts may adopt a “jail, not bail” stance.

3. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The SC/ST (PoA) Act is a special law enacted to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It:

Defines specific offences (e.g., caste-based abuse, social ostracism, dispossession from land, violence, etc.);
Provides for enhanced punishment when SC/ST persons are targeted because of their caste or tribe status;
Sets up Special Courts for speedy trial;
Imposes stricter conditions on anticipatory bail (Sections 18 and 18A);
Allows appeals under Section 14A against orders granting or refusing bail.

In the present case, the charges under Section 3(2)(v) are crucial. That provision (in essence) prescribes harsher punishment when a person from an SC/ST community is targeted specifically on account of caste.

4. Section 14A(2) – Appeal Against Bail Orders

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015, allows an appeal to the High Court against an order passed by a Special Court granting or refusing bail in cases under the Act.

In this case:

The appellant used Section 14A(2) to challenge the refusal of bail by the Sessions Court (PCR Court);
The High Court examined whether the lower court’s decision was:
- Reasonable and justified; or
- Perverse, arbitrary, or ignoring material facts.

5. BNSS and Section 483

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the new procedural criminal code replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 483 BNSS (functional successor of Section 439 CrPC) deals with the power of the Sessions Court and High Court to grant bail in non-bailable offences.

While the numbering has changed, the core principles governing bail remain similar: courts must assess facts, gravity of the crime, evidence, and risks related to the accused’s release.

6. Concepts of “Tampering with Evidence” and “Threatening Witnesses”

Tampering with evidence means any attempt to:
- Destroy or alter physical evidence (documents, phones, weapons, clothes);
- Manipulate records or electronic data (call logs, chats);
- Influence or fabricate evidence.
Threatening witnesses includes:
- Direct threats of harm or retaliation;
- Indirect pressure through social boycott or community pressure;
- Inducements to change testimony.

These concerns are especially grave when the accused:

Hold authority (e.g., police officers); or
Belong to dominant castes in areas where victims are dependent on them socially/economically.

VII. Conclusion: Significance of the Judgment

The decision in Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu is a firm reaffirmation of a more restrictive bail regime for:

Honour killings that attack constitutional values of equality, dignity, and free choice; and
Caste-based atrocities under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, especially where victims are Dalits and accused are from dominant communities and/or law enforcement.

Key takeaways include:

Honour killings form a distinct, severely condemned category of crime, for which the usual maxim of “bail, not jail” is displaced by a “jail and jail” approach, as endorsed by the Supreme Court.
Filing of a charge-sheet does not automatically favour bail, particularly in heinous offences where:
- Further investigation (e.g., into conspiracy) is possible; and
- The risk of witness intimidation remains real.
Victim-centric and caste-sensitive perspectives are central under the SC/ST (PoA) Act: courts must account for systemic injustice and the special vulnerabilities of SC/ST victims when deciding bail.
When accused are police officers or wield institutional power, courts must consider the heightened risk of investigative interference and pressure on witnesses.
The judgment exemplifies how BNSS-era bail provisions will be interpreted in light of longstanding constitutional commitments and special statutes like the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Ultimately, the judgment signals a continued judicial resolve to:

Protect autonomy in intimate relationships from violent retribution;
Ensure that Dalit victims and their families are not further silenced through procedural leniency towards powerful accused; and
Use bail jurisprudence as a tool to uphold constitutional morality over social conservatism.

In doing so, Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu stands as an important precedent in the continuing effort to eradicate honour killings and caste atrocities through a robust and principled application of bail law.

Honour Killings as an Exception to the “Bail, not Jail” Rule: A Detailed Commentary on Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), 03.12.2025