Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, Monnaiyan @ Duraisamy, under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking to set aside the order of the trial court that had dismissed his bail application. The case arose from a brutal murder that took place on 19 March 2025, when the deceased Chanakya @ John was intercepted and assaulted with deadly weapons by the appellant and other accused persons near Nasiyanur, leading to his death on the spot. The police registered Crime No. 137 of 2025 initially under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and later, upon discovering that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, altered the case to include provisions of the SC/ST Act. The investigation culminated in a final report against 14 accused, including the appellant, for offences including murder, rioting, and offences under the SC/ST Act. The specific allegation against the appellant (A-10) was that he travelled with other accused, monitored the deceased's movements, and provided real-time information to the first accused. His bail application was rejected by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, on 15 October 2025. Before the High Court, the appellant's counsel argued that the appellant was not present at the time of occurrence, that his implication rested solely on the confession of the first accused, and that this confession was inadmissible without independent evidence. It was highlighted that a similarly placed co-accused, Alagarasan @ Alaguraj (A-7), had initially been denied bail by the High Court but was subsequently granted bail by the Supreme Court on 26 February 2026. Another co-accused, Periyasamy (A-14), had also been granted bail by the High Court. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the appellant's close association with the first accused, the heinous nature of the crime, the appellant's 12 previous cases, and the potential threat to the de facto complainant. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found merit in the appellant's case. It noted that the appellant was not present at the crime scene, his role was based on the confession of a co-accused, and there was parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order, allowed the appeal, and granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be a blood relative, and with the condition that the appellant appear before the trial court on all working days at 10:30 a.m. until further orders.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Grant of Bail under SC/ST Act - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 14A; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 109(1), 49, 61(2), 3(5), 103(1), 238(a), 336(3), 324(5); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 - The appellant's role in the murder case was limited to conveying the deceased's movements to the first accused based on the confession of the co-accused; he was not present at the crime scene. A similarly placed co-accused (A-7) was granted bail by the Supreme Court. Held, on parity, the appellant is entitled to bail; the order dismissing bail is set aside, and bail granted with conditions including a bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties, one being a blood relative, and appearance before the trial court on all working days until further orders. (Paras 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail when his implication is based primarily on the confession of a co-accused without any overt act, and a similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of the trial court dated 15.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.2557 of 2025 is set aside. The appellant is granted bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, of whom one should be a blood relative, to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, and on condition that the appellant shall appear before the trial court on all working days at 10:30 a.m. until further orders. The substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended.
Law Points
- Bail under SC/ST Act
- confession of co-accused alone insufficient to deny bail when no overt act attributed and appellant not present at crime scene
- parity of treatment with similarly placed co-accused who was granted bail by Supreme Court
- mere pendency of previous cases not a ground to deny bail when no convictions recorded.
