“Honour killing continues to plague Indian society despite constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and freedom of marriage : Madras High Court
Isabella Mariam
The Madras High Court at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar declined to grant bail to a Sub-Inspector of Police and dismissed his challenge to an earlier refusal of bail, holding that he was not entitled to release at this stage. The case concerns allegations of an honour killing in Tirunelveli district, in which an IT professional was fatally attacked after a relationship involving the accused’s family member, with the victim’s mother as the de facto complainant. The Court noted that honour killings continue despite constitutional protections and referred to the Supreme Court’s view that the usual “bail, not jail” approach is inapplicable in such crimes, making bail a guarded exception balancing liberty with societal order.
The appeal arose from the dismissal of a bail petition filed by the appellant, a serving police officer, who was arrayed as the second accused in a case registered in connection with the killing of a young man. The prosecution case, as recorded, was that the de facto complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and that her son was allegedly murdered by the first accused due to his relationship with the first accused’s sister. It was alleged that caste-related abuse preceded the assault and that the offence was committed in a brutal manner using a sickle.
Initially, an FIR was registered by the jurisdictional police for offences under the penal law and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the CBCID, and a fresh FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed against four accused persons, including the appellant, and the case was taken on file by the Special Court.
The appellant sought bail contending that there was no overt act attributed to him, that he was falsely implicated, and that he was on official duty at the relevant time. The prosecution and the de facto complainant opposed bail, alleging that the appellant had an active role before and after the occurrence, that it was a case of honour killing, and that his release would result in witness intimidation and interference with further investigation.
The Court recorded that the prosecution case treated the occurrence as a clear instance of honour killing arising out of an inter-caste relationship. It noted that the appellant’s daughter had admitted her relationship with the deceased and that there were statements indicating the appellant’s presence at the scene. The Court observed 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.”
Referring to the objections raised by the de facto complainant, the Court recorded allegations that the appellant had attempted to influence the investigation, instruct the co-accused to delete phone contacts, and interfere with witnesses. It also noted that one of the co-accused, who was also a police officer, was absconding.
The Court made broader observations on honour killings, stating 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.”
It observed: “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
It recorded that the Supreme Court had described such crimes as “the most drastic and draconian act” and a “blight on Indian society.” The Court further noted the Supreme Court’s view that the principle of “bail not jail” does not apply to heinous honour killing crimes and that in such cases “it should be ‘jail and jail’.”
Taking into account the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the role attributed to the appellant, the Court stated that it was “not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.”
The Court recorded that, having regard to “the gravity of the charges levelled and the role played by the appellant as stated by the prosecution,” and after taking note of “the serious objections raised by the second respondent’s side,” it was “not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.”
The Court directed that “the impugned order dismissing the bail plea is perfectly in order and the same cannot be found fault with.” It concluded that “the criminal appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. N. Anantha Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel for M/s. APN Law Associates
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State; Mr. B. Mohan, Advocate
Case Title: Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Case Number: Crl.A.(MD) No.1201 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Murali Shankar
