Madras High Court Refuses Bail to Police Officer in Alleged Honour Killing of IT Employee

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, on December 3, 2025, refused bail to a police officer, father of the prime accused in the alleged honour killing of a 23-year-old man, while observing that honour killing is a “draconian,” “dishonourable” and constitutionally impermissible act that courts must view with extreme severity.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments that the principle of “bail, not jail” does not apply to honour killing cases, court held that the gravity of the allegations and the material placed on record made the police officer ineligible for bail.

"Honour killing continues to plague Indian society despite constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and freedom of marriage," said the bench of Justice K Murali Shankar.

He pointed out that when a boy and a girl love each other and marry against family or societal wishes, it sometimes leads to lethal violence by family members or relatives in the name of ''honour'' and it poses a serious challenge to law and justice.

Kavin Selvaganesh, an IT employee, was allegedly targeted for his relationship with police officer Saravanan's daughter, who belonged to the Hindu Maravar community. According to the prosecution, Kavin, who belonged to the Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, had been friends with Saravanan's daughter since school. The girl in her statement also admitted that she was in love with Kavin.

On July 27, Kavin had visited the therapy clinic of the police officer's daughter with his family earlier that day. The police officer's son (the prime accused) allegedly took Kavin outside on the pretext that his parents wished to meet him. Minutes later, Kavin’s mother and relatives reportedly saw the two standing on a roadside, where the brother allegedly abused Kavin by caste name, drew a sickle and attacked him, inflicting multiple cut injuries that caused his death on the spot.

The FIR, initially registered at the local police station and later transferred to the CBCID–South on the DGP’s directions, named four accused, including Saravanan, his wife (who remains absconding), their son, and another relative. Both parents are serving police personnel. The sessions court had earlier dismissed Saravanan’s bail plea on October 29.

Before the High Court, Saravanan contended that he had no role in the incident, had no knowledge of the couple’s meeting, and was on duty at the Special Battalion in Rajapalayam when the crime occurred. He argued that he was falsely implicated due to community pressure and that no overt act was attributed to him despite his prolonged custody of more than 100 days.

The de facto complainant, Kavin's mother, opposed the plea, asserting that the murder was a clear case of honour killing and that the parents of the prime accused not only knew of the relationship but had played an active role before and after the attack. It was alleged that Saravanan was present at the scene, instructed his son to delete evidence from his phone, and influenced the initial stages of the investigation. Her counsel also highlighted that the third accused, a Sub Inspector, remained absconding months after the incident, and that the family continued to face threats, prompting police protection.

The prosecution supported these objections. The Government Advocate submitted that Saravanan’s claim of being on duty was false and that he was, in fact, present at the spot. The State relied on the statement of a Head Constable who placed Saravanan at the location immediately after the attack. It was further argued that releasing him would pose a threat to witnesses, particularly in light of his position as a police officer.

Court found that the materials produced by the prosecution, including witness accounts, indicated possible involvement by the appellant. It observed that the mere filing of a charge sheet could not justify bail in a case described as an honour killing. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, including S.Yuvaraj Vs. State, the judge stated that honour killings undermine constitutional freedoms and require strict scrutiny, noting that bail in such cases is a “carefully guarded exception".

Finding no ground to interfere, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and declined bail to Saravanan.

Case Title: Saravanan vs State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Order Date: December 3, 2025

Bench: Justice K Murali Shankar