The Madras High Court has clarified that bail cannot be cancelled merely on the ground of non-appearance at a police station when the accused is otherwise complying with court-mandated trial obligations. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural conditions imposed by trial courts must be reasonable and subordinate to the accused’s presence in judicial proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, D. Petchimuthu, is the accused in two pending cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: S.C.No.39 of 2022 and S.C.No.10 of 2024 before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi. He was initially granted bail but later arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant. He was again released on bail by the trial court on 24.10.2024 in Cr.M.P.Nos.1213 and 1214 of 2024, subject to a condition that he reside in Chennai and report daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. to the Thirumangalam Police Station.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was released on bail on 07.11.2024 under the above conditions.
- On 12.11.2024, he filed an application seeking modification of the reporting condition, citing logistical difficulties.
- On 17.11.2024, he was arrested in connection with Crime No.274 of 2024 at Seidunganallur Police Station, Thoothukudi, for offences under Sections 296(b), 132, 351(3) BNS and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.
- Following his arrest in Crime No.274 of 2024, the application for modification of bail conditions was withdrawn.
- The petitioner was granted bail in Crime No.274 of 2024 by this Court on 02.01.2025 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22267 of 2025, with a condition to report daily at 10.00 a.m. to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Murappanadu Police Station.
- The respondent police filed petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.1279 and 1280 of 2024 seeking cancellation of bail granted in Cr.M.P.Nos.1213 and 1214 of 2024, alleging non-compliance between 07.11.2024 and 11.11.2024.
- The Special Court cancelled the bail on 16.12.2025 on the sole ground of non-appearance at Thirumangalam Police Station.
Procedural History
- 24.10.2024: Trial Court grants bail to petitioner in Cr.M.P.Nos.1213 and 1214 of 2024 with reporting condition.
- 07.11.2024: Petitioner released on bail.
- 12.11.2024: Petitioner files application seeking modification of reporting condition.
- 17.11.2024: Petitioner arrested in Crime No.274 of 2024; modification application withdrawn.
- 02.01.2025: Madras High Court grants bail in Crime No.274 of 2024 with new reporting condition.
- 16.12.2025: Special Court cancels bail in S.C.Nos.39/2022 and 10/2024 for non-compliance with reporting condition.
- 28.03.2026: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST Act challenging cancellation order.
- 28.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Madras High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel, contends that he did not willfully default. His failure to report at Thirumangalam Police Station was due to his arrest in Crime No.274 of 2024 on 17.11.2024, which rendered compliance impossible. He further argues that he has since complied with the stricter reporting condition imposed by this Court on 02.01.2025. He relies on Sheikh Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185) to argue that non-appearance at a police station, absent evidence of mala fide intent or flight risk, is not a valid ground for bail cancellation.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by Mr. A.S. Abul Kalaam Azad and Government Advocate (Crl. Side), argues that the petitioner is a notorious criminal with 19 prior cases, including eight under Section 302 IPC, five of which are communal murders. The State contends that the petitioner’s failure to report, even for four days, demonstrates a pattern of disregard for judicial conditions and poses a risk to the integrity of ongoing trials. The State further alleges that the petitioner’s arrest in Crime No.274 of 2024 was a consequence of his non-compliance, not a cause.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 16.12.2025 cancelling his bail in S.C.Nos.39 of 2022 and 10 of 2024, and regranting bail with reasonable conditions.
The Legal Issue
Can bail granted under the SC/ST (POA) Act be cancelled solely on the ground that the accused failed to report at a police station, when the accused is otherwise present before the trial court and has been granted bail in a subsequent case with a different reporting condition?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court’s condition requiring daily reporting to a police station is not a judicial necessity but an administrative imposition. He emphasized that the accused has not absconded, has appeared before the trial court, and has complied with the more stringent reporting condition imposed by this Court in Crime No.274 of 2024. He cited Sheikh Irshad @ Monu v. State of Maharashtra to assert that once charges are framed and trial is underway, police reporting conditions are prima facie untenable unless tied to specific threats to investigation. He further contended that the State’s reliance on prior criminal antecedents cannot override the principle that bail cancellation must be based on conduct during the current bail period, not speculative risk.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the petitioner’s history of 19 prior cases, including multiple murders, establishes him as a habitual offender with a high risk of reoffending and witness tampering. The State maintained that non-compliance with bail conditions, even for a short period, undermines judicial authority and sets a dangerous precedent. It contended that the petitioner’s arrest in Crime No.274 of 2024 was not an external event but a direct consequence of his disregard for court orders. The State further argued that the petitioner’s subsequent compliance with this Court’s bail condition does not retroactively validate his prior default.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the condition imposed by the trial court and its legal sufficiency. It noted that the petitioner was not absent from the trial court proceedings, nor had he evaded summons or failed to appear before the judiciary. The condition to report daily to a police station was administrative, not judicial, and lacked statutory backing under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
"From record, we find that after filing chargesheet and on committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, it is pending for trial. As per the orders of the Trial Court, the appellant is appearing in Trial Court. In a situation wherein chargesheet has been filed and the trial is in progress, direction to appear in police station is prima facie not tenable. It is not a case in which the appellant is not appearing during trial before the Trial Court. However, cancellation of bail merely on the pretext of non-appearance in police station, may not be a correct approach and a good ground."
The Court held that the Supreme Court’s observation in Sheikh Irshad @ Monu is directly applicable: once the trial is in progress and the accused is present before the court, police reporting conditions cannot be the sole basis for bail cancellation. The Court further observed that the petitioner’s arrest in Crime No.274 of 2024 on 17.11.2024 rendered compliance with the earlier condition impossible, and his subsequent compliance with this Court’s bail order demonstrated his willingness to abide by judicial directives.
The Court also noted that the charges in S.C.No.10 of 2024 had not yet been framed, and copies of the charge sheet had not been furnished to the accused, raising concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. The Court rejected the State’s reliance on prior antecedents as a substitute for evidence of current risk, emphasizing that bail decisions must be based on the facts of the case at hand.
The Verdict
The appeals are allowed. The order dated 16.12.2025 cancelling bail in S.C.Nos.39 of 2022 and 10 of 2024 is set aside. The petitioner is granted bail on the following conditions: (i) execution of a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 in each case with two sureties, each for a like sum, who must be government servants; (ii) submission of Aadhaar or government-issued ID proof; (iii) daily reporting at 10.30 a.m. to the 2nd respondent police station until further orders; (iv) filing of affidavits by the petitioner and sureties confirming availability for trial; (v) no commission of further offences; and (vi) bail cancellation upon violation. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, and the concerned District Judges are directed to ensure expeditious conclusion of all pending cases against the petitioner.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Reporting Conditions Are Not Automatic Grounds for Bail Cancellation
- Practitioners must argue that bail cancellation under the SC/ST Act or other statutes cannot rest solely on failure to report to police stations when the accused is present before the trial court.
- Courts must distinguish between judicial obligations (appearance in court) and administrative conditions (police reporting), with the former taking precedence.
Prior Antecedents Cannot Override Current Conduct
- A history of prior offences, however serious, cannot substitute for evidence of current flight risk or obstruction of justice.
- Bail decisions must be based on conduct during the current bail period, not speculative risk based on past crimes.
Trial Progress Trumps Administrative Conditions
- Once a chargesheet is filed and trial is underway, conditions requiring police reporting are prima facie unreasonable unless tied to specific investigative needs.
- Courts should impose conditions that are proportionate, necessary, and judicially grounded - not merely administrative.
Compliance with Higher Court Orders Validates Good Faith
- If an accused complies with a stricter condition imposed by a higher court, this demonstrates good faith and negates allegations of willful default.
- Withdrawal of a modification application due to arrest does not constitute default if the accused is thereafter compliant under a new order.
Procedural Fairness in SC/ST Cases
- Failure to furnish charge sheet copies to the accused undermines the fairness of proceedings and must be addressed before invoking stringent bail conditions.
- Courts must ensure that procedural delays do not become tools for prolonged detention under the guise of public interest.
