Vignesh vs The State of Tamilnadu rep. by
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011599792026}
Vignesh
S/o, Govindaraj,
Main Road, Thiruchotruthurai,
Thiruvaiyaru Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thanjavur Sub-Division,
Thanjavur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Naducauvery Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
Crime No.64 of 2017
3. Prakash,
S/o, Kaliyamoorthi,
Mela Adi Dravidar Street,
Thiruchotruthurai, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section Petition u/s 528 of BNSS to
direct call for the records relating to the remand order dated 09.10.2026
made in Spl.S.C.No.159 of 2017 arising out of Crime No.64 of 2017 on
the file of the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR),
Thanjavur and set aside the same as illegal and consequently direct the
release of the petitioner by giving effect to the earlier bail order.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 02:50:11 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
For Petitioner(s) :M/s M. RAGUL
For Respondent(s) :MR.ARUN,
GOVT.ADVOCATE(CRL.SIDE)
FOR R1 TO R2
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by A8 in Spl. SC No.159
of 2017 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR),
Thanjavur, seeking to set aside the order of remand, dated 09.10.2026.
2. Perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner is facing
trial for the alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324,
307, 506(2) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 2015.
3. The petitioner had not appeared before the Court on
21.09.2026 and NBW was issued on the same day. The petitioner had
surrendered before the trial Court on 09.10.2026 and prayed for recalling
of the NBW. However, the said petition has been dismissed and petitioner
has been remanded to judicial custody under the impugned order.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 02:50:11 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
4. Perusal of the order reveals that the Court has recorded a
finding that because of the absence of the petitioner, the witnesses could
not be examined and the petitioner had purposely remained absent and
the counsel of the petitioner has not filed any application under section
317 of Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that this is the first time that he could not appear before the trial Court
and the non-appearance is due to his illness. Since the Advocates were on
boycott on that day, an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., could
not be filed. Therefore, his non-appearance on the said date is neither
wilful nor wanton. He further submitted that without seeking any
explanation from the petitioner relating to his non-appearance, an order of
remand has been passed mechanically. He also relied upon a decision of
this Court in Crl.OP(MD) No.23354 of 2026, dated 16.10.2026 .
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 02:50:11 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
7. As could be seen from the records, the trial Court has
rejected the request of the petitioner to recall NBW for his non-
appearance on 21.09.2026 and remanded the petitioner to judicial
custody. The petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 30 days.
8. This Court in Crl.OP(MD) No.23354 of 2026, dated
16.10.2026 between S.Mahesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu , had an occasion
to consider the issue relating to a recall of NBW and the procedure to be
followed by the trial Court. The paragraph numbers 19 and 20 of the said
order are extracted as follows:
“ 19. The principles that emerge from the above
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court
may be summarised thus:
(a) Where an accused who is on bail in a bailable/ non-bailable
offence fails to appear on a hearing date without seeking
dispensation of his presence, the trial Court may issue a non-
bailable warrant to secure his presence under Section 89 of Cr.P.C.
(Section 92 of BNSS).
(b) Upon his arrest and production before the Court, the accused
shall be afforded an opportunity to explain why he failed to appear
from the particular date onwards.
(c) Should the accused seek time to offer his explanation, he may be
remanded to judicial custody pending such enquiry.
(d) If the explanation is found satisfactory, the trial Court may
recall the non-bailable warrant and let him off, invoking Section
70(2) of Cr.P.C. (Section 72(2) of BNSS).
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 02:50:11 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
(e) If the explanation is not satisfactory, the trial Court shall record
its reasons and render a finding that the bond stands forfeited.
(f) Such an order of forfeiture of the bond shall not, by itself, visit
the sureties with any consequence under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.; a
separate notice to the sureties is required to initiate proceedings
under that provision.
(g) Independent of any proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.,
the Court is competent to proceed against the accused under Section
446-A of Cr.P.C. for breach of the bond.
(h) Once the Court records a finding that the bail bond has been
forfeited, the bail bond stands automatically cancelled, and
consequently, the bail also stands cancelled.
20. Once the bail stands cancelled, the accused may be
released only upon executing a fresh personal bond or surety bond
in terms of the proviso to Section 446-A of Cr.P.C. Where the bail
bond and the order of bail stand cancelled, the remand of the
accused would be under Section 309(2) of Cr.P.C., and not under
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.”
9. In the present case, the trial Court has passed the
impugned remand order without affording any opportunity to the
petitioner to explain his non-appearance on 21.09.2026. The trial Court
has also not recorded any finding that the bail bond stood forfeited. The
petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 30 days. In such
circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely setting aside the
impugned order and remitting the matter for the trial Court will serve no
purpose.
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 02:50:11 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
10. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass the following
order:
The order of remand, dated 09.10.2026 passed as against the
•
petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, I Additional District
and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur in Crl.M.P.No.649 of 2026
in Spl.SC No.159 of 2017 is hereby set aside;
The petitioner shall be released on bail on condition that he shall
•
appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearings and on
such terms as to the bond and sureties as may be fixed by the trial
Court, so as to secure his continued participation in the trial.
11. With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original
Petition stands disposed of.
12-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy on today (12.11.2026)
PNM
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 02:50:11 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
To
1. The Sessions Judge, I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR),
Thanjavur
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thanjavur Sub-Division, Thanjavur District
3. The Inspector of Police
Naducauvery Police Station
Thanjavur District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 02:50:11 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
PNM
CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026
12-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 02:50:11 pm )