“Honour Killing Continues To Plague Indian Society”: Madras High Court Refuses To Grant Bail To Cop In Kavin Honour Killing Case

While dismissing Saravanan's appeal against the District Court's refusal to grant bail, Justice K Murali Shankar observed that honour killing continued to plague Indian society despite the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and freedom of marriage. Reiterating the Supreme Court's observation that “bail not jail” does not apply to heinous crimes like honour killing, the court added that in such cases, bail should be a carefully guarded exception balancing liberty with societal order.

“Honour killing continues to plague Indian society despite constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and freedom of marriage. When a boy and girl loves 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,” the court said.

“Honour killing remains a serious issue in Indian society, prompting ongoing judicial concern and reform, Courts uphold constitutional liberties, applying strict scrutiny to ensure justice. In grave offences like honour killing, bail is a carefully guarded exception, balancing liberty with justice and societal order. Judicial vigilance and societal awareness are crucial in eradicating the heinous crime,” the court further observed.

Kavin Selvaganesh, a techie working in Chennai belonging to the Hindu Devendra Kula Vellalar community, was hacked to death on July 27, 2025 by the family of the woman, with whom he allegedly had a love affair, who belonged to the Hindu Maravar community. The prosecution case was that on the day of the incident, Kavin, with his mother, brother and uncle had went to the clinic were the woman was working to enquire regarding a treatment to be given to Kavin's grandfather.

While the family was talking to the girl, her brother came to the place and asked Kavin to accompany him on the pretext of having a conversation. Later, when Kavin's family came out of the clinic, they saw the girl's brother abusing Kavin in filthy language using caste name, after which he attacked Kavin using a sickle, causing his death. A case was registered against the brother, father (the appellant in the present case), mother, and relative of the girl under Sections 296(b) [obscene acts and songs], 103(1) [punishment for murder], and 49 [Punishment for abetment]of the BNS read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

The appellant, father of the girl, filed a bail petition before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli which was dismissed. The present appeal was filed against this dismissal. The appellant argued that he was innocent and did not have any clue about the incident. He argued that at the time of incident, he was on duty as Special Sub Inspector in the Special Battalion at Rajapalayam and came to know about the incident through TV reports. He further alleged that there is no specific overt act against him and he was roped in only to satisfy the leaders of the victim's community.

The defacto complainant, Kavin's mother, argued that the investigation was not conducted property and made with an intention to save the appellant and other accused. She submitted that she intended to move an application for further investigation. She submitted that the appellant's incarceration for 100 days was immaterial in the present case since she and her family members were continuously being subjected to threats and were given police protection.

The Government Advocate informed the court that the appellant's submission that he was on duty on the day of incident was false and he was available at the place of occurrence as per evidence. It was submitted that since it was a case of honour killing, if the appellant was released on bail, he would threaten the witnesses and thus the trial court had rightly dismissed the bail plea.

Noting that it was a clear case of honour killing, the court observed that mere filing of charge sheet and taking cognisance of the case were not sufficient for granting bail in such a brutal murder case.

Thus, noting the gravity of charged against the appellant and taking note of the serious objection raised by Kavin's family, the court was not inclined to grant bail and dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. N. Anantha Padmanabhan, Senior Counsel for M/s.APN Law Associates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate, Mr. B. Mohan

Case Title: Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 481

Case No: Crl.A.(MD)No.1201 of 2025

 Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment