Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.20545 of 2025

Krishnakumari ... Petitioner/Accused No.3

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by its,

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Tirunelveli Circle,

Tirunelveli District. .... 1

st

Respondent/Investigation Officer

2. The Inspector of Police,

CBCID South Police Station,

In Cr.No.1/2025,

Tirunelveli District. .... 2

nd

Respondent / Complainant

3. Tamilselvei, .... 3

rd

Respondent /

De-facto Complainant,

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to direct the learned II Additional District Court,

Tirunelveli, to consider the recall warrant application of the

petitioner on the same day if she surrender in S.C.No.120/2025 on

its file.

1/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

For Petitioner: Mr.Subash Babu,

Senior counsel,

M/s.Subash Law Office

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.Thanga Aravindh.B,

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

For R-3 : Mr.B.Mohan,

For Mr.C.M.Arumugam

ORDER

Prologue:

Justice in this land has long been measured not by the status

of the accused, but by the depth of the wrong and the voice of the

aggrieved. Tamil tradition recalls the legendary reign of Manu Neethi

Cholan, who, upon hearing the cry of a voiceless cow whose calf was

killed under his son’s chariot, chose to subject his own son to the

rigour of law, affirming that justice admits no exception, even for

one’s own kin. Centuries later, the constitutional promise of equality

before law enshrined in Article 14, and the protection of life and

dignity under Article 21, continue to echo that timeless principle.

Yet, incidents of honour killing, driven by caste prejudice and

misplaced notions of familial pride, remind us that the journey from

legend to lived reality remains unfinished.

2/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

2. The present case, arising from the brutal killing of a young

engineer belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, calls upon the

justice delivery system to remain steadfast to that ancient yet

enduring mandate that law must stand taller than lineage, office, or

influence, and that the cry of a grieving mother must receive the

same attentive response as the bell of justice once did in the Court of

Manu Neethi Cholan.

3. The petition is projected as a “direction petition” invoking

the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, complaining that after filing of

the final report and taking the case on file as S.C.No.120 of 2025,

the learned Trial Judge issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against the

petitioner (A3) “without first issuing summons”. The petitioner, while

asserting that she has no overt act and that she was not arrested

during investigation, seeks a mandamus-like direction to the

Sessions Court to entertain and decide her recall petition

immediately upon surrender.

4. The respondent-State and the victim-side resist the petition

primarily (i) on maintainability, contending that what is sought is

3/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

nothing but an indirect challenge to the judicial act of issuance of

warrant, without even impleading/challenging that order in the

manner known to law, (ii) that the petitioner has an efficacious

alternative remedy before the very same Court which issued the

warrant and (iii) that a direction under Section 528 BNSS cannot be

used as a substitute for statutory procedure.

5. This Court, therefore, confines itself to the limited question,

whether the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS should be

exercised to issue a direction of the kind sought, in the factual

setting of a heinous murder case coupled with allegations under the

SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Case of the prosecution:

6. The prosecution case arises out of Crime No.1 of 2025,

registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 103(1) and 49 of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),

3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended).

4/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

7. The gravamen of the accusation is that the deceased, stated

to belong to a Scheduled Caste, was brutally murdered in broad

daylight, and that the occurrence is projected as an “honour killing”

arising from an inter-caste relationship. The prosecution alleges a

conspiracy and facilitation by family members, including the

petitioner (A3), who is stated to be a police officer, and the mother of

A1.

8. Investigation having been completed, a final report has been

filed and the case has been taken on file as S.C.No.120 of 2025 on

the file of the learned II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli. It is in

that proceeding that the NBW came to be issued.

Case of the petitioner / grounds urged:

9. The petitioner is arrayed as A3. She states that she is a Sub-

Inspector of Police (now suspended), and that she was neither

present at the scene nor attributed with any specific overt act or

caste-related utterance. The principal ground projected in the

petition is that the learned Sessions Court issued a Non-Bailable

Warrant “straight away” on 11.11.2025/12.11.2025 without first

5/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

issuing summons, and that such mechanical issuance is contrary to

procedure and violative of liberty.

10. The petitioner relies upon decisions such as Inder Mohan

Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others

1

on

restraint in issuing NBWs, Satender Kumar Antil

2

on process and

bail considerations after filing of charge-sheet, and Tarsem Lal v.

Directorate of Enforcement

3

on normal rule of issuing summons

where the accused was not arrested prior to complaint, to argue that

summons ought to have been issued first, and that she should be

permitted to surrender and have her recall petition decided on the

same day. The petitioner asserts that she is ready to cooperate with

trial and seeks a direction so that she is not subjected to undue

hardship and loss of liberty.

11. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit

that this is a grave case involving murder and offences under the

SC/ST (PoA) Act, and that the petitioner, being an accused and a

1 2007 (12) SCC 1

22022 10 SCC 51

3 2024 INSC 434

6/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

police officer, cannot plead ignorance of process. It is submitted that

issuance of process is within the discretion of the Court, and in

serious offences, issuance of NBW cannot be equated with illegality

per se.

12. It is further contended that Section 528 BNSS cannot be

invoked to secure what is essentially a direction touching a judicial

function of the Sessions Court, especially when the petitioner has

the simple remedy of surrendering and moving the Court which

issued the warrant.

13. The learned counsel for the victim-side submits that the

petition is not maintainable as framed, since the petitioner has not

challenged the NBW order. Rather, she seeks a direction to “manage”

the consequences of an NBW in a manner that may indirectly confer

a protective cover. It is also urged that the allegations in the charge

sheet disclose a larger conspiracy, and that the case is a brutal

honour killing, therefore, any indulgence under inherent jurisdiction,

even by a “direction”, may undermine the due course of trial. The

victim-side further submits that rights under Section 15A of the

7/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

SC/ST (PoA) Act must be scrupulously respected and that the

petitioner must pursue the remedy before the learned Trial Court in

accordance with law.

14. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

15. Whether the Criminal Original Petition filed under Section

528 BNSS, 2023, is maintainable and merits exercise of inherent

jurisdiction, to direct the learned II Additional District Court,

Tirunelveli, to consider the petitioner’s recall-of-NBW application “on

the same day”, in the facts of the case?

Analysis:

Nature of relief - direction petition as a surrogate to

challenge a judicial order:

16. The relief sought, though couched as a “direction”, in

substance asks this Court to intervene in relation to a judicial act of

issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant and to regulate the manner and

8/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

time within which the learned Trial Court must deal with the

petitioner’s recall application.

17. A warrant is not an administrative step, but it is a judicial

process issued by a Court in seisin of a sessions case. If the

petitioner’s grievance is that the NBW is illegal or mechanically

issued, the proper course is to assail the issuance order

appropriately, or approach the very Court which issued the warrant

with an application for recall/cancellation and seek a hearing in

accordance with law.

18. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is

undoubtedly wide, but it is equally settled that it is not meant to

create a parallel appellate/supervisory mechanism for every

procedural grievance, particularly when the Code provides an

efficacious remedy, and more so when the petitioner seeks a

direction that may trench upon the learned Trial Court’s control over

its process and docket.

9/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

Alternative remedy is not illusory, it is the precise remedy

contemplated by law:

19. In the present case, the petitioner has a direct and effective

remedy: surrender/appear before the learned Trial Court and file an

application for recall/cancellation of warrant. The learned Trial

Court, being the issuing Court, is the most appropriate forum to

consider (i) whether summons could have been issued; (ii) whether

there was any evasion; (iii) what conditions, if any, are required to

secure appearance.

20. The plea that the petitioner apprehends an adverse

outcome before the learned Trial Court cannot be a ground to bypass

the statutory route and seek a pre-structured direction from this

Court, especially in a case involving grave accusations including

offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

21. This Court, in Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. State

4

,

dealt with the invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, where a

specific remedy exists under the Code. The relevant portion is

extracted verbatim as follows:

4 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 9348

10/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

“40. Under Section 397, Cr.P.C., the High Court has been

conferred with revisional powers to call for the records of any

proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court and test the

correctness, legality or propriety of such an order or proceeding.

The inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be invoked in

matters that are covered by Section 397, ibid. But, can Section

482, for instance, be invoked when a matter is covered by a

specific mention? The answer to this question is an emphatic

“no”. Where specific provisions exist under the Code to deal with

a given situation, the invocation of Section 482, is clearly barred.

This has been vividly explained by the Privy Council in Lala

Jairam Das v. The King Emperor [1945 MWN (Cr.) 62], where, the

issue before the Privy Council was whether the High Court can

grant bail by exercise of its inherent power to a person whose

conviction has been confirmed by the High Court and leave has

been granted to move the Privy Council, pending decision of the

Board. In that context, the Privy Council held that inherent power

cannot be exercised to grant bail, however, desirable it may be.

The following passages from the said judgment are instructive

and will dispel the doubts in this regard. “Section 561 A of the

Code confers no powers. It merely safeguards all existing

inherent powers possessed by a High Court necessary (among

other purposes) to secure the ends of justice. . . . Finally their

Lordships take the view that Chapter XXXIX of the Code together

with S.426 is, and was intended to contain, a complete and

11/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

exhaustive statement of the powers of a High Court in India to

grant bail and excludes the existence of any inherent additional

power in a High Court relating to the subject of bail. They find

themselves in agreement with the views expressed by

Richardson J., Henderson J. and Bose J. in the three cases

referred to earlier in this judgment. . . . . Their Lordships fully

appreciate the propriety and utility of such a power, exercisable

by judges acquainted with the relevant facts of each case, and (if

exercised) with power to order that the bail period be excluded

from the term of any sentence. But in their Lordships' opinion this

desirable object can only be achieved by legislation.”

22. In the instant case, the grieving and victimised mother has

raised concerns regarding the maintainability of this Criminal

Original Petition, categorically contending that an alternate remedy

is available under Section 72(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, and this Court finds no quarrel with the said

contention. It would be a dereliction of duty on the part of this Court

if it does not draw the attention of the prosecution and the

investigating agency to the fact that Section 15A of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment

Act, 2015, which falls under Chapter IV-A titled “Rights of Victims

12/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

and Witnesses”, has been introduced by the lawmakers with the

avowed object of making necessary arrangements for the protection

of victims, their dependents, and witnesses against any kind of

intimidation, coercion, inducement, violence, or threats of violence,

and to ensure the active participation of the dependents/legal heirs

of the victim as stakeholders in the criminal justice delivery system.

23. Caste passions and bigotry must be uprooted to realise the

constitutional vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who ensured equality

before law and equal protection of laws. Even in a mature

democracy, caste atrocities remain a dark scar, demanding societal

surgery through firm enforcement of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The

Investigating Agency and the Judiciary must work in seamless

coordination to ensure that the life and liberty of even a single Indian

citizen is never sacrificed at the altar of caste. Welfare legislations

meant to empower the voiceless will remain paper tigers unless the

criminal justice system enforces them with commitment, sensitivity,

and alacrity.

13/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

Explanation called for from the investigating agency:

24. This Court also records that, during the course of hearing

this case, by an order dated 16.12.2025, this Court considered it

appropriate to seek an explanation from the Investigating Agency

and, accordingly, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who

conducted the investigation, to appear before this Court on

18.12.2025 and explain as to why the petitioner herein / A3 was not

arrested during the course of investigation, despite the allegations

levelled being grave in nature and carrying severe penal

consequences.

25. The aforesaid direction was issued in the backdrop of the

specific contention raised by the petitioner that she was never

arrested during the investigation and that, notwithstanding the

same, a Non-Bailable Warrant came to be issued immediately after

the case was taken on file. The appearance of the Investigating

Officer was therefore necessitated to ascertain whether the non-

arrest of A3 was a conscious and reasoned investigative decision

based on the materials collected, or whether it disclosed any lapse,

14/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

irregularity, or dereliction of duty in the discharge of statutory

obligations.

Appearance of the investigating officer and explanation

offered:

26. Pursuant thereto, on 18.12.2025, Thiru C. Rajakumar

Navaraj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch–CID,

Tirunelveli, appeared before this Court. On his instructions, the

learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the offences

under Sections 238(a) and 249(a) read with Section 103(1) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are bailable offences. It was further

submitted that, on such premise, notice under Section 35(3) of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was served on the

petitioner / A3, pursuant to which she appeared for enquiry, was

interrogated, and her statement was recorded on 23.09.2025.

27. The submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.

side) indicated that the petitioner cooperated with the investigation

by appearing for enquiry. The explanation offered is placed on record

for completeness. This Court refrains from making any determination

15/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

on the adequacy or correctness of the investigative steps, as such

matters fall within the province of the trial and allied proceedings.

Selective non-arrest and investigative discretion:

28. The prosecution has not placed before this Court any

material to indicate the rationale for adopting different approaches

with respect to the arrest of the accused persons, particularly when

A2 and A3 are similarly placed in terms of their alleged role in the

occurrence and their institutional background. While it is within the

domain of the investigating agency to decide whether arrest is

necessary during investigation, such discretion is expected to be

exercised on objective considerations and applied uniformly,

especially in cases involving grave offences.

29. The materials placed do not sufficiently illuminate the

basis on which the petitioner/A3 was permitted to appear for enquiry

without arrest, whereas the co-accused were subjected to custodial

measures. This Court refrains from drawing any conclusion on the

correctness or otherwise of such investigative choices, however, the

absence of a clear explanation underscores the need for heightened

16/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

transparency and consistency in investigations involving serious

allegations.

Materials disclosing long-standing inter-caste

relationship and vulnerability of witnesses:

30. The statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973,

including those of LW 1, LW 2, LW 3, LW 26 and other witnesses,

indicate that the deceased and the daughter of A2 and A3 were

acquainted for a considerable period prior to the occurrence. Certain

aspects emerging from these statements reflect the interpersonal

dynamics surrounding the incident.

31. In cases of this nature, where witnesses are closely

connected to the parties involved, courts are required to remain

mindful of the statutory obligation to ensure that witnesses are

insulated from any form of influence, whether direct or indirect. The

record does not presently disclose the measures, if any, adopted by

the investigating agency to address such concerns, including the

manner in which LW 26 was accommodated following the

occurrence. These observations are made only to highlight the

17/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

importance of safeguarding witness autonomy in accordance with

law, and not as a finding on any alleged attempt to influence

witnesses.

The voice of the grieving mother and societal context:

32. The de facto complainant, who is the mother of the

deceased, has actively engaged with the legal process following the

incident and has sought to exercise the participatory rights available

to victims under the statutory framework. The Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, particularly Section

15A, recognises such participation as an integral component of a fair

criminal justice process.

33. Allegations of honour-based violence implicate broader

societal concerns and require Courts to be sensitive to the interests

of victims and witnesses, while simultaneously ensuring that the

rights of the accused are adjudicated strictly in accordance with law.

Judicial engagement with such cases must therefore proceed with

caution, balance, and adherence to procedural discipline. The

present observations are confined to acknowledging the statutory

18/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

position of victims in the criminal justice system and the need for

their rights to be respected during the pendency of proceedings.

Discretion to issue warrant-serious offences and the

factual matrix:

34. The petitioner heavily relies on general principles that

NBWs should not be issued mechanically and that summons

ordinarily precedes warrant. This Court does not disagree with the

proposition that process must reflect judicial application of mind.

However, the proposition cannot be applied in a vacuum to demand

a one-size-fits-all direction.

35. The offences alleged here include murder and offences

under a special statute. The learned Trial Court is statutorily

empowered, at the stage of process, to issue warrant in a warrant

case, depending on its satisfaction. Whether the learned Trial Court

exercised discretion properly or not is a matter to be urged before the

learned Trial Court itself in a recall petition, or by challenging the

order in the manner known to law.

19/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

36. The petitioner’s reliance on Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of

Enforcement

5

is also context-specific. That decision arose in the

framework of PMLA practice, and the observations regarding “normal

rule” cannot be mechanically transplanted to every sessions case

involving allegations of honour killing and SC/ST (PoA) provisions, to

compel this Court to issue a mandamus to the learned Trial Court.

Section 528 bnss—ends of justice cannot be converted

into “process management”:

37. Section 528 BNSS saves the inherent power to prevent

abuse of process and secure ends of justice. The petitioner’s prayer,

however, is not to quash a proceeding, not to correct a jurisdictional

illegality apparent on the face of record, but to obtain a direction that

her recall petition be decided “on the same day”.

38. Granting such a direction, in the manner sought, would

amount to this Court micro-managing the learned Trial court

process, particularly in a sensitive sessions trial, and may

unintentionally be perceived as conferring an undue procedural

advantage. The learned Trial Court is bound to act in accordance

5 2024 INSC 434

20/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

with law. It is presumed to consider applications fairly, including

recall of warrants, after hearing the victim-side in terms of Section

15A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. There is therefore no compelling

necessity to invoke Section 528 BNSS for the limited “same day

consideration” direction.

39. The petitioner repeatedly asserts that she is only a

peripheral accused and seeks to portray herself as a mere

“customer”/non-participant. This Court is not persuaded to entertain

such merits-laden characterisation in a petition of this nature.

Whether the petitioner has a peripheral role, whether she was a

conspirator, whether there is material to connect her, and whether

the SC/ST (PoA) provisions are attracted are all questions that fall

within the domain of the learned Trial Court at appropriate stages,

including consideration of recall, bail (if maintainable), discharge,

and trial. In a direction petition under Section 528 BNSS, this Court

will not pre-judge the petitioner’s role by accepting the “customer”

label, nor will it craft directions on that premise.

21/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

Application of Inder Mohan Goswami principles:

40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami

and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others

6

, has elaborately

dealt with the principles governing issuance of warrants. The

extracted portion relied upon by this Court is retained verbatim

below:

“47. Before parting with this appeal, we would like to

discuss an issue which is of great public importance, i.e., how

and when warrants should be issued by the Court? It has come to

our notice that in many cases that bailable and non-bailable

warrants are issued casually and mechanically. In the instant

case, the court without properly comprehending the nature of

controversy involved and without exhausting the available

remedies issued non-bailable warrants. The trial court

disregarded the settled legal position clearly enumerated in the

following two cases.

48. In Omwati v.State of UP & Another (2004) 4 SCC 425,

this court dealt with a rather unusual matter wherein the High

Court firstly issued bailable warrants against the appellant and

thereafter by issuing non-bailable warrants put the complainant

6 2007 (12) SCC 1

22/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

of the case behind bars without going through the facts of the

case. This Court observed that the unfortunate sequel of such

unmindful orders has been that the appellant was taken into

custody and had to remain in jail for a few days, but without any

justification whatsoever. She suffered because facts of the case

were not considered in proper perspective before passing the

orders. The court also observed that some degree of care is

supposed to be taken before issuing warrants.

49. In State of U.P. v. Poosu & Another (1976) 3 SCC 1 at

para 13 page 5, the Court observed:

13...Whether in the circumstances of the case, the

attendance of the accused respondent can be best secured by

issuing a bailable warrant or non- bailable warrant, is a matter

which rests entirely in the discretion of the court. Although, the

discretion is exercised judiciously, it is not possible to computerize

and reduce into immutable formulae the diverse considerations on

the basis of which this discretion is exercised. Broadly speaking,

the court would take into account the various factors such as the

nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the

evidence, circumstances peculiar to the accused, possibility of his

absconding, larger interest of the public and the State.

23/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

Personal liberty and the interest of the State

50. Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is the

most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration

of Independence 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men

and the Citizen 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 all

speak with one voice - liberty is the natural and inalienable right

of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution

proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in

accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves

interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment

means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual.

Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing

non-bailable warrants.

52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the

interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are

extremely important for the survival of a civilized society.

Sometimes in the larger interest of the Public and the State it

becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual

for a certain period, only then the non-bailable warrants should

be issued.

24/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

53. When non-bailable warrants should be issued

Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to

court when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to

have the desired result. This could be when:

it is reasonable to believe that the person will not

voluntarily appear in court; or

* the police authorities are unable to find the person to

serve him with a summon; or

* it is considered that the person could harm someone if

not placed into custody immediately.

54. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a

summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in

the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be

preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should

never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete

application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences

and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court

must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or

FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.

55. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court

should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the

complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the

court, in the second instance should issue bailable- warrant. In

the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the

25/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

accused is avoiding the courts proceeding intentionally, the

process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be

resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution

courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-

bailable warrants.

56. The power being discretionary must be exercised

judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should

properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before

issuing warrants. There cannot be any strait-jacket formula for

issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is

charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and

it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is

likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable

warrants should be avoided.

57. The Court should try to maintain proper balance

between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the

State while issuing non-bailable warrant.

58. On consideration of the totality of facts and

circumstances of this case, the impugned judgment and order of

the High Court cannot be sustained.”

26/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

41. There can be no dispute that the present case relates to a

heinous honour killing of a young and enterprising engineer

belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. The Investigating Agency

has, however, consciously allowed the 3rd accused, who is part of

the same departmental fraternity, to submit to interrogation without

being placed under arrest.

42. Considering the brutality of the offence, the subsequent

acts alleged against the accused collectively, and the undeniable

possibility of institutional influence of A1 and A2, this Court

apprehends that the decision not to arrest A3 carries a tangible risk

of witness intimidation or influence, thereby striking at the fairness

of the investigative process. The discretion to issue bailable or non-

bailable warrants vests with the Trial Court. In the present

circumstances, this Court is persuaded that the learned Trial Court

has appropriately exercised such discretion, prioritising the larger

societal interest while addressing the entrenched social evil of

honour killing, without disproportionately trenching upon personal

liberty.

27/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

43. Despite the subsistence of a Non-Bailable Warrant, the

petitioner/3rd accused seeks a special and expedited consideration

of her recall application on the very day of surrender, an indulgence

akin to that earlier extended by the Investigating Agency. Acceding to

such a request would, in the considered view of this Court, frustrate

the object and spirit of Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015,

which is designed to safeguard victims and witnesses from coercion

and undue influence.

44. Thus, this Court finds no merit in invoking its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to issue the direction sought.

Notwithstanding the dismissal of this Criminal Original Petition and

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution

case, this Court deems it appropriate to record a supervisory

observation with regard to the manner in which the investigation has

been conducted in the present case. The explanation offered for the

non-arrest of this petitioner, particularly when the allegations

disclose grave offences carrying severe penal consequences and

implicating provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

28/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

does not inspire confidence and falls short of the standard of

transparency and rigour expected of an investigating agency.

45. This Court is constrained to observe that selective exercise

of investigative discretion, especially where the accused occupy

positions within the law-enforcement machinery, has the potential to

erode public confidence in the fairness of criminal investigation. The

objectives of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, more

particularly the protective mandate under Section 15A concerning

victims and witnesses, require investigations to be conducted with

heightened sensitivity, impartiality, and promptness, ensuring that

victims are not reduced to mere spectators in the justice delivery

process.

46. This observation is intended only as a reminder of

institutional responsibility and shall not be construed as a finding,

direction, or mandate affecting the pending trial or the rights and

liabilities of the parties. It is expected that the investigating agency

and the prosecuting machinery will, in future, scrupulously adhere

to the statutory safeguards and constitutional obligations governing

29/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

investigation, so as to preserve both the integrity of the process and

the confidence of the victim and society at large.

47. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

48. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to

appear/surrender before the learned II Additional District Court,

Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.120 of 2025, and seek appropriate relief in

accordance with law, and the Trial Court shall deal with such

application uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

02.01.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1.The Judge,

II Additional District Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Tirunelveli Circle,

Tirunelveli District.

3.The Inspector of Police,

CBCID South Police Station,

Tirunelveli District.

30/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

31/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.20545 of 2025

02.01.2026

32/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis