Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Madras High Court’s order granting bail to the accused, holding that the bail order was vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness and non-application of mind. The appeal was filed by the de facto complainant against bail granted in a 2020 case involving allegations of an armed assault amounting to attempt to murder, along with caste-based abuse, arising from a dispute over land. The Bench noted that the accused had previously been on bail and were also facing allegations of murdering a key injured eyewitness in a separate case while on such bail. The Court cancelled the bail, directed surrender within two weeks, and set aside the High Court’s direction for a joint trial.

The criminal appeals arose from an order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granting bail to the accused in a case registered for offences including unlawful assembly, use of deadly weapons, attempt to murder, and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant, who was the defacto complainant, alleged that while surveying and fencing agricultural land, he and a companion were assaulted by the accused, accompanied by caste-based abuse. An FIR was registered, and the accused were initially granted bail during investigation.

Also Read: Corporate Social Responsibility Must Include Environmental Responsibility: Supreme Court Disposes Great Indian Bustard Conservation Pleas, Directs Time-Bound Powerline Mitigation And Habitat Protection Measures

While on bail, some of the accused were alleged to have murdered the injured eyewitness, leading to the registration of a second FIR for murder. Following this development, bail earlier granted in the first case was cancelled. Subsequent bail applications were rejected by the trial court. However, the High Court later granted bail to the accused again and directed that both criminal cases be tried jointly.

Aggrieved by the grant of bail and the direction for joint trial, the defacto complainant approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offences, prior cancellation of bail, alleged misuse of liberty, and the distinct nature of the two criminal cases.

The Court reviewed the statutory framework under Section 15A and the authorities on the scope of the victim’s procedural rights. The Court “held that sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature.” The Court observed that “Sub-section (3) of Section 15A confers a statutory right on the victim or their dependents to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including a bail proceeding.” It recorded that “Sub-section (5) provides for a right to be heard to the victim or to a dependent…” and stressed that “The provisions of sub-section (3) which stipulate the requirement of notice and of sub-section (5) which confers a right to be heard must be construed harmoniously.” The Court accepted that the statutory right guarantees an opportunity of audience and noted that “the statutory right to be heard presupposes that the victim is made aware of the proceedings and is not excluded therefrom.”

At the same time the Court clarified the scope of that right, stating “The provision guarantees an opportunity to be heard, not a right to a favourable outcome or to a detailed adjudication of every objection raised by the victim.” Consequently, the Court observed that cancellation of bail on the ground of non-compliance is confined to cases of “complete denial of the victim’s statutory right to be heard.” Applying these principles, the Court recorded that the victim had been aware of the bail proceedings and objections were placed on record; therefore “Since the victim was heard and permitted to participate in the bail proceedings, the core statutory requirement under Section 15A(5) stood complied with.”

Separately, the Court examined the High Court’s treatment of other material facts and concluded that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind. The Court stated that the High Court “failed even to advert to these aspects, let alone analyse their impact on the entitlement of the respondents / accused to bail.” The Court further observed that the High Court’s reasoning did not meaningfully evaluate the gravity of the offences, criminal antecedents or the prior cancellation of bail, and that such omission rendered the order “manifestly perverse.”

Concerning the direction for a joint trial, the Court recorded established principles that separate trials are the rule and observed that the High Court had not examined statutory criteria; accordingly, the Court found that “the direction issued by the High Court for joint trial of Crime No. 39 of 2020 and Crime No. 202 of 2022 is legally unsustainable, contrary to the statutory scheme and binding precedents.”

Also Read: Sexual Assault By Husband’s Kin Treated As Cruelty Under IPC 498A, No Separate Trial Warranted; Delhi High Court Quashes In-Laws’ Discharge, Allows Joint Trial

The Supreme Court ordered that “the criminal appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The bail granted to the respondents/accused stands cancelled. The respondents/accused are directed to surrender before the jurisdictional trial Court within a period of two weeks from today.”

“The trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure their custody. The trial Court shall conduct the trial independently, purely on merits, and in accordance with law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR Mr. A Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. K R Bharathi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Purushothaman, Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. K.s.badhrinathan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Aashigaa Pravaagini, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. C.R.Jaya Sukin, Adv. Mr. Yashimka Anand, Adv. Mr. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Issac Haiding, Adv. Mr. Suresh Kumari, Adv.

Case Title: Lakshmanan v. State
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1483
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6647–6650 of 2025)
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna; Justice R. Mahadevan