The Madras High Court reaffirmed that an accused’s absence from trial cannot be held against them when they were in judicial custody at the relevant time. This decision, delivered under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, upholds procedural fairness in bail considerations, clarifies trial court obligations, and is binding on all lower courts within its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL A(MD)/907/2025 of Raj Kumar @ Kokki Kumar Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police |
| CNR | HCMD011031542025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for bail applications in SC/ST (POA) Act cases at subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Bail, SC/ST (POA) Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that an accused cannot be faulted for non-appearance when such absence is due to being in judicial custody for another case. It emphasized the prosecution’s duty to inform the trial court of the accused’s judicial status and ruled that absence under such circumstances cannot justify denial of bail. The Court further directed that statutory mandates regarding timely trial under Section 14(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act must be strictly adhered to. The order of the Sessions Court rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with conditions. |
| Logic / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The case arises from an FIR registered under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act. The appellant missed a hearing as he was in judicial custody in another case, but was faulted for absence and denied bail. Prior absences and warrants were noted, but in the current instance, the Court found the absence excusable due to confirmed custody. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Tamil Nadu dealing with bail under the SC/ST (POA) Act |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in cases involving excusable non-appearance due to judicial custody |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedent — P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] (on bail enforcement) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court held that non-appearance at trial cannot be attributed as the accused’s fault if the absence was due to being in judicial custody in another case.
- Reaffirms prosecution responsibility to inform the court about judicial custody of an accused instead of merely seeking warrants for non-appearance.
- Statutory direction: Trial courts must comply strictly with Section 14(3) of SC/ST (POA) Act mandating day-to-day trial completion within two months from charge sheet.
- The order delineates precise bail conditions and enforcement procedures for accused in SC/ST (POA) matters.
- Lawyers may cite this ruling to challenge bail denials premised on non-appearance when the client was in custody elsewhere.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the appellant’s absence on the critical hearing date was due to arrest and judicial custody in a separate criminal case, and not due to wilful evasion.
- The prosecution failed to notify the trial court of the appellant’s judicial custody when seeking a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW).
- The Court observed that previous absences by the appellant had been sanctioned (either with recall of NBW or fresh grant of bail), but in this instance, non-appearance was not voluntary.
- Emphasized that fault for absence could not be attributed to the appellant, as custody prevented attendance; thus, rejection of bail on this ground was erroneous.
- Directed that trial courts must adhere to Section 14(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which mandates expeditious, day-to-day trial.
- Relied upon precedent (P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala) for enforcement of bail conditions and provided robust safeguards by imposing detailed conditions on bail.
- The order of the lower court was set aside; bail was granted with rigorous conditions, and the trial court was ordered to expedite the proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Absence on 03.07.2025 was unavoidable as he was in judicial custody for an unrelated case.
- The prosecution failed to inform the trial court of his custodial status.
- The Sessions Judge did not consider that the non-appearance was not intentional.
- The appellant would cooperate in concluding the trial and would not tamper with evidence.
Respondent (State)
- The appellant has a history of non-appearance, with multiple NBWs having been issued previously.
- The appellant is a history-sheeter with 19 prior cases, suggesting a tendency to evade.
- The case remains pending since 2019 largely due to the appellant’s non-cooperation.
- The trial court was justified in rejecting bail in view of this pattern.
Factual Background
The case originated from an incident on 22.05.2019 involving the alleged murder of the defacto complainant’s husband. An FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act. During trial, the appellant repeatedly failed to appear, leading to the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants. On the date in question (03.07.2025), the accused failed to appear not by choice, but because he was in judicial custody in a separate matter. His bail application was rejected by the trial court. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the sequence and reasons for absence, and the prosecution’s response.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 14A(2) SC/ST (POA) Act: Empowers appeal against orders relating to bail.
- Section 14(3) SC/ST (POA) Act: Mandates that Special Court trials must proceed on a day-to-day basis with all witnesses examined, ideally within two months of filing the charge sheet.
- Section 302 IPC: Punishes murder.
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.: Bail provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, invoked for bail application.
The Court interpreted Section 14(3) as mandatory, not merely directory, for trial speed and emphasized obligations on the trial court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Imposed a condition requiring at least one surety for bail to be a blood relative, with solvency certificate.
- Ordered the trial court to strictly comply with statutory trial completion timelines.
- Directed that in case of future abscondence, a fresh FIR under Section 268-A BNS be initiated.
- Reiterated enforcement mechanisms for bail conditions, with specific reference to P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established procedural fairness regarding fault for absence due to judicial custody, and mandates statutory compliance with expeditious trial timelines under the SC/ST (POA) Act.