Bail Cannot Be Granted By Ignoring Prior Misuse Of Liberty: Supreme Court Cancels Bail In Case Where Accused Allegedly Murdered Prime Witness After Release

"The High Court failed to evaluate the death of the material witness while the accused were on bail – such omission vitiates the bail order by perversity and non-application of mind", Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Lakshmanan v. State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors., setting aside a bail order granted by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The Court ruled that the High Court had "mechanically granted bail" in a case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, despite prior misuse of bail that allegedly led to the murder of the prime injured witness in broad daylight.

The two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, allowed the criminal appeals filed by the defacto complainant, Lakshmanan, and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, observing that “the High Court ignored the demonstrable abuse of bail and the gravity of the offences while granting liberty to the accused, thereby rendering its order perverse and unsustainable.”

Accused Committed Murder of Key Witness While on Bail: Supreme Court Emphasises Risk to Fair Trial

“Death of a material witness and intimidation strike at the root of fair trial – High Court failed to evaluate this determinative factor”

In an unusual yet grave factual matrix, the accused—who were earlier granted bail in connection with Crime No. 39 of 2020—were alleged to have conspired and committed the murder of Suresh, the prime injured witness in the same case, while still out on bail. This prompted the registration of a fresh FIR (Crime No. 202 of 2022) under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court, noting the seriousness of these developments, refused further bail, but the High Court later reversed this by granting bail again in April 2025.

This sequence of events, the Supreme Court held, could not be disregarded: “The omission to consider prior cancellation of bail and demonstrated abuse of liberty renders the impugned judgment manifestly perverse,” the Court observed. It noted that once liberty granted is shown to have been misused to commit an even more heinous offence—in this case, murder of a witness—any further release must be scrutinized with heightened care.

The appellant, Lakshmanan, had been assaulted along with his friend Suresh on February 24, 2020, allegedly by a group led by the first accused, Gopalakrishnan. The attack, which included caste-based abuses, was registered under various sections of the IPC including 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The accused were granted bail by the trial Court in September 2020.

While the trial was pending in Special S.C. No. 25 of 2021, the accused allegedly murdered Suresh on December 18, 2022. Consequently, a new FIR (Crime No. 202 of 2022) was registered under Section 302 IPC. Citing this grave turn of events, the High Court had initially cancelled the earlier bail on March 31, 2023. However, in April 2025, the same High Court bench re-granted bail in connection with the earlier case (Crime No. 39/2020) without accounting for this development, leading to the present challenge before the Supreme Court.

The main thrust of the appellant’s argument was that “the liberty of the accused had already been misused, and their release posed an existential threat to the fairness of the trial and safety of remaining witnesses.” It was also argued that the High Court erred in mechanically clubbing two distinct cases for a joint trial without legal basis.

Victim's Right to Be Heard Under SC/ST Act Not Violated, But Bail Annulled for Perversity

The appellant argued that the High Court had failed to consider the objections raised by the victim under Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The Court clarified that the right under Section 15A(5) is mandatory, but its scope is limited to an opportunity of hearing—not necessarily an outcome in favour of the victim.

Quoting its own precedent in Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan, the Court emphasized that “Section 15A embodies the principle of audi alteram partem for victims of caste-based atrocities.” However, the Court concluded that “the appellant was heard and his objections were noted in the impugned judgment; hence, no procedural illegality under Section 15A(5) has occurred.”

Yet, the Supreme Court did not stop there. Despite finding no violation of the victim’s statutory rights in the technical sense, the Court went on to annul the bail order on the more substantial ground of perversity and arbitrariness, observing that “the High Court disregarded the very basis for the earlier cancellation of bail and failed to assess the threat to a fair trial.”

Mechanical Bail Grant Ignored Gravity of Offences Under SC/ST Act and Prior Criminal Conduct

The judgment underlined that allegations under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, coupled with charges under Section 307 IPC, warranted strict scrutiny. Yet, the High Court “failed to meaningfully evaluate the gravity of the offences, the societal impact of releasing the accused, or their criminal antecedents.”

The Court highlighted that “recording antecedents without evaluating their impact amounts to an empty formality.” The fact that some of the accused had been declared “Goondas” under preventive detention laws and were involved in threatening witnesses in courtrooms was a factor that “should have been given due weightage by the High Court.”

High Court’s Direction for Joint Trial of Distinct Cases Also Struck Down

In a further blow to the High Court’s April 2025 order, the Supreme Court also set aside its direction for joint trial of two criminal cases—Crime No. 39 of 2020 (attempt to murder and caste-based abuse) and Crime No. 202 of 2022 (murder of the prime witness).

Citing the provisions of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. and its counterpart Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Court held that the two cases arose from “distinct transactions, in different years, and involved different factual foundations.”

The Court reiterated that “separate trials are the rule and joint trials are the exception, permissible only when offences are of the same kind and committed within a 12-month window.” Moreover, “such a substantive procedural direction cannot be issued while deciding bail, especially without recording satisfaction on statutory prerequisites.”

The Court quoted its ruling in Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana, stating: “Even where the statutory conditions for a joint trial are fulfilled, it is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised at the trial’s threshold—not at the stage of bail.”

Bail Cancelled, Joint Trial Quashed, Fair Trial Must Prevail

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s April 2025 order in its entirety, cancelled the bail of the accused in Crime No. 39 of 2020, and quashed the direction for joint trial with Crime No. 202 of 2022. The accused were directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which the trial Court was empowered to take coercive steps.

The Court emphasized: “Trial Courts must proceed independently, uninfluenced by prior bail orders, and ensure that justice is not derailed due to procedural lapses or judicial oversight at the bail stage.”

The verdict reaffirms the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence that bail orders must be passed with judicial application of mind, especially in cases involving grave offences and vulnerable victims. Misuse of liberty, especially when it leads to elimination of witnesses, cannot be brushed aside, and any such bail granted without scrutiny stands vitiated.

Date of Decision: December 19, 2025