Naveen vs The State of Tamilnadu, rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011469762026}
Naveen
..Petitioner/
Accused No.2/
Accused No.2
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu, rep by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Aranthangi,
Pudukkottai Distirct.
2. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By
The Inspector Of Police,
Nagudi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District,
(Crime No.510 of 2020)
..Respondents 1 & 2/
Complainant 1 & 2/
Complainant 1 & 2
3. Murugesan
..3rd Respondent/
Defacto complainant/
Defacto complainant
PRAYER: This Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 praying to
call for records in Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2026 pending on the file of the Special
Court for Trial of SC / ST Act cases, Pudukkottai in connection with
Crime No.510 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent police and set
aside the NBW order dated 17.08.2026 in Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2026 and to
direct release of petitioner on same bail bond.
__________
Page 1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Aruljenifer
for M/s.KBS Law Office
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Balasubramanian
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for
R1 and R2
Mr.Murugesan (party-in-person) for
R3
ORDER
The above petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the order
dated 17.08.2026, whereby the petitioner/accused was remanded to
judicial custody upon being produced before the Court pursuant to the
execution of the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him on 05.08.2023.
2. It is evident from the records that on the basis of the complaint
lodged by the third respondent / defacto complainant, FIR came to be
registered in Crime No.510 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b),
324 and 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. It is further evident that charge sheet came to be filed and the
case was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Special
Court for Trial of SC / ST Act cases, Pudukkottai against the accused
including the petitioner and since the petitioner has not turned up for the
__________
Page 2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
hearing, Non-Bailable Warrant was ordered to be issued on 05.08.2023
and that thereafter, the case was ordered to be split up as against the
petitioner and the third accused Soamaiah and the same was taken on file
in Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2026 and the same is pending on the file of the Special
Court for Trial of SC / ST Act cases, Pudukkottai.
3. It is not in dispute that since the petitioner has not turned for the
hearing, Non-Bailable Warrant came to be issued on 05.08.2023 and the
same came to be executed and he was arrested on 17.08.2026 and on
production before the learned trial Judge, he was remanded to judicial
custody. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a bail petition before the trial
Court in Crl.M.P.No.283 of 2026 and the learned Sessions Judge, vide
order dated 03.09.2026, dismissed the petition. The petitioner, invoking
Section 14A(2) of SC / ST (POA) Act, preferred an appeal challenging
the dismissal of the bail petition in Crl.A.(MD)No.1139 of 2026 before
this Court and a learned Judge of this Court, while considering the said
appeal, observed that the bail earlier granted to the petitioner had not
been cancelled by following the procedure contemplated in Pillappan @
Ravikumar Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, West Police
Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, reported in 2018 (3) CTC
156 and that therefore, the question of granting second bail does not arise.
__________
Page 3 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
At that juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission
to withdraw the appeal with liberty to challenge the remand order passed
by the trial Court. Accordingly, by order dated 05.10.2026, this Court
dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the remand order in the manner known to law. In pursuance of
the said liberty granted, the petitioner has filed the present petition
challenging the remand order dated 17.08.2026.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly
contend that the petitioner had earlier been enlarged on bail by the trial
Court and admittedly, the said order granting bail had not been cancelled,
that when the petitioner was subsequently arrested in pursuance of the
Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him, the learned trial Judge ought to
have called upon him to explain his absence, considered such explanation
and recorded a specific finding that the bail bond stood forfeited and that
in the absence of such an exercise, the order remanding the petitioner to
judicial custody is illegal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance
upon the order of this Court passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21222 of 2026
dated 01.10.2026, in a similar fact situation and the relevant passages are
__________
Page 4 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
extracted hereunder:
“5. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to
examine the distinction between an order granting bail
and the bond/bail bond executed by an accused in
pursuance of the said order. Though these two concepts
are interconnected, they are distinct aspects and cannot
be equated with each other. An order granting bail
confers liberty upon the accused, subject to the conditions
imposed by the Court, whereas the bond / bail bond
executed pursuant thereto indicates his undertaking to
appear before the Court as and when required.
6. In Talab Haji Hussain Vs. Madhukar Purshottam
Mondkar and another reported in AIR 1958 SC 376, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the position of
an accused involved in a bailable offence, held that
though the accused involved in a bailable offence has a
statutory right to bail, such right cannot be separated
from his subsequent conduct and that an earlier grant of
bail does not confer any right upon the accused to remain
at liberty irrespective of the subsequent conduct of the
accused.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rasiklal Vs.
Kishore reported in 2009 4 SCC 446, held that though the
right to bail in respect of a bailable offence is absolute
and indefeasible, Section 436(2) Cr.P.C. empowers the
Court to refuse to release an accused on bail, when he has
__________
Page 5 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bond
regarding the time and place of attendance and
subsequently appears before the Court or is brought
before it in custody.
8. It is pertinent to note that Section 436(2) Cr.P.C.
contemplates that even where the original offence is
bailable and the initial entitlement to bail is a matter of
right, failure of the accused to comply with the conditions
regarding attendance may result in refusal of subsequent
reliefs. The corresponding provision is now contained in
Section 478(2) BNSS.
9. Considering the above, it is very much clear that
the statutory scheme does not contemplate that an
accused, after securing his liberty by undertaking to
appear before the Court, can disregard such undertaking
and insist that the earlier order granting bail must
continue to remain unaffected.
10. In Pillappan @ Ravikumar Vs. State represented
by the Inspector of Police reported in 2018 (3) CTC 156,
while considering the consequences flowing from the
breach of an appearance bond, a learned Judge of this
Court has drawn a distinction between cancellation of bail
and cancellation of the bail bond and held that it was not
necessary for the Magistrate to cancel the earlier order
granting bail before taking action upon the breach
__________
Page 6 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
committed by the accused. The learned Judge has further
held that upon breach of the bond, the bail bond gets
automatically cancelled and the accused may either be
released upon fresh bail or remanded to judicial custody,
in which event he has to seek bail afresh. In the said
decision, it was also held that the accused should be
afforded an opportunity to explain his absence and if such
explanation is found unsatisfactory, the Court should
record a finding regarding forfeiture of the bond and on
such finding, the bail bond would stand cancelled by
operation of law.
11. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
in Thundichi Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 4
KLT 67, wherein, after considering Section 446 Cr.P.C.
and the statutory form of the bond, the Division Bench
held that the very purpose of executing such a bond is to
secure the presence of the accused before the Court and
that the accused, by executing such a bond, undertakes to
appear before the Court on the dates fixed. The Division
Bench further held that in the case of a bond for
appearance, the fact constituting the accused’s presence
or absence is within the knowledge of the Court itself and
the Court does not require any independent witness to
ascertain whether the accused was present or absent on
the date fixed and consequently, mere non-appearance, in
breach of the undertaking, results in forfeiture of the bond
__________
Page 7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
and the law does not require, at that stage, any enquiry as
to whether the absence was wilful or otherwise. The
Division Bench, while answering the reference, held that
there is no necessity for recording satisfaction at the
automatic stage of forfeiture since the absence of the
accused on the date fixed itself result in forfeiture of the
bond.
12. An accused, who executes a bond solemnly
undertaking to appear before the Court, is duty bound to
honour such undertaking and if circumstances beyond his
control prevented his appearance, it is for him to place the
sufficient cause and seek appropriate relief and that
therefore, the Court cannot be expected to conduct an
independent enquiry into the reasons for his absence.
13. No doubt, the learned Judge of this Court, in
Pillappan @ Ravikumar's case referred supra, has
prescribed a procedural safeguard requiring that an
opportunity be afforded to the accused to explain his
absence, when he is subsequently produced before the
Court and that such explanation be duly considered. The
Courts within the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union
Territory of Puducherry are required to follow the
procedure indicated therein, but at the same time,
requirement of following such procedure and the legal
consequences of omission to follow such procedure are
entirely different and distinct proceedings.
__________
Page 8 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
14. It is pertinent to note that Pillappan @
Ravikumar's case referred supra, does not declare that
the failure of the remanding Court to record the
explanation of the accused, the reasons for its rejection
and a formal finding regarding forfeiture of the bond
would render the order of remand void or without
jurisdiction. At the same time, the said decision recognises
the power of the Court to remand an accused who, after
obtaining bail, failed to appear and was subsequently
arrested pursuant to a warrant. More importantly, in the
said decision, it was held that a separate cancellation of
the earlier order granting bail is not necessary before
exercising such power.
15. As per the statutory scheme under the BNSS,
Section 491 deals with the procedure relating to the
forfeiture of bonds and the consequential liability to pay
the penalty and Section 492 deals with the cancellation of
the bond and bail bond consequent upon forfeiture for
breach of a condition, whereas, Section 478(2) recognises
that even an accused involved in a bailable offence, who
has failed to comply with the conditions regarding the
time and place of attendance, may be refused bail when he
subsequently appears before the Court or is brought
before the Court in custody in the same case.
16. Considering the above, it is clear that the statutory
__________
Page 9 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
scheme does not support the proposition, that an accused,
who has violated the undertaking, must be treated as
continuing on the earlier bail until a separate order
cancelling the said bail is passed. Such an interpretation
would put an accused involved in a non-bailable offence,
who failed to appear before the Court and had to be
secured through a Non-Bailable Warrant, in a more
advantageous position than an accused involved in a
bailable offence, to whom Section 478(2) BNSS applies.
17. Considering the legal position in the above
perspective, this Court is not in an agreement with the
contention that the remand order has become illegal
merely because the learned trial Judge did not expressly
record in the remand order, the explanation given by the
petitioner / accused, the reasons for rejecting such
explanation and a finding that the bail bond stood
forfeited. No doubt, the procedure laid down in Pillappan
@ Ravikumar's case referred supra ought to have been
followed but at the same time, neither Pillappan @
Ravikumar's case referred above nor any statutory
provision declares that omission to record such exercise
nullifies the remand order.
18. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner had earlier been released on bail, that
thereafter failed to appear before the trial Court and
hence, Non-Bailable Warrant came to be issued, that the
__________
Page 10 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
Non-Bailable Warrant was subsequently executed and that
the petitioner was produced before the trial Court and
was remanded to judicial custody.
19. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to
accept the contention that the remand order is void or
without jurisdiction merely because the learned trial
Judge neither separately cancelled the bail granted
earlier nor expressly recorded, in the remand order, all
the procedural steps indicated in Pillappan @
Ravikumar’s case referred supra. No doubt, there has
been an omission to expressly record the exercise laid
down therein, but in the absence of any statutory provision
or binding precedent declaring that such omission renders
the subsequent remand or custody illegal, the petitioner’s
prayer to set aside the remand order on that ground
cannot legally be sustained.
20. The petitioner has already been in judicial custody
for nearly 74 days consequent upon the execution of the
Non-Bailable Warrant. No doubt, the petitioner's failure
to appear before the trial Court cannot be countenanced,
but at the same time, detaining him consequent upon such
default cannot be permitted to acquire a punitive
character.
21. It is pertinent to mention that even in Pillappan @
Ravikumar's case referred supra, this Court had taken
__________
Page 11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
into consideration the period of custody already
undergone by the accused and held that such
incarceration constituted sufficient consequences for his
abscondence and consequently, directed to release on
bail.
22. Ordinarily, after refusing to interfere with the
remand order, this Court could direct the petitioner to
appear the trial Court and seek bail afresh and in the
event of an adverse order, to work out the statutory
remedy available to him by approaching the appellate
Court under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act but,
adopting such a course at this stage would only result in
yet another round of proceedings and prolong the
incarceration of the petitioner, who has already
undergone nearly 74 days of judicial custody. The
petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528
BNSS, which recognizes the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. The exercise of such inherent
jurisdiction, in matters affecting the personal liberty of an
accused, is not unknown to criminal jurisprudence. No
doubt, this Court is also of the view that Section 528 BNSS
cannot be invoked as a substitute for the specific statutory
provisions governing regular bail or the appellate remedy
available under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
__________
Page 12 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
However, the present case stands on a peculiar footing.
The petitioner had already been granted bail and his
present custody arose only on the basis of his subsequent
failure to appear before the trial Court and his
consequential production on execution of the Non-
Bailable Warrant. The legality of the remand is now under
challenge and that the petitioner has already undergone
nearly 74 days of incarceration while pursuing the remedy
available to him.
23. In the above circumstances, directing the
petitioner to once again approach the trial Court with a
fresh bail application and thereafter, in the event of its
dismissal, approach this Court by way of an appeal would
serve no useful purpose, except to prolong his custody and
multiple rounds of proceedings.
24. Considering the above facts and circumstances,
the period of incarceration already undergone, the
circumstances which resulted in his remand and the fact
that his presence before the trial Court has now been
secured, this Court is of the view that further
incarceration is not warranted but at the same time,
stringent conditions are to be imposed to ensure his
continued presence during the trial before the trial Court.
Consequently, while this Court is not inclined to set aside
the impugned order of remand, having regard to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the
__________
Page 13 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
period of incarceration already undergone by the
petitioner, this Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and in order to
secure the ends of justice, is inclined to order his release
on bail.”
6. Even in the present case, the petitioner has already been in
judicial custody for nearly 74 days consequent upon the execution of the
Non-Bailable Warrant.
7. When the matter is taken up today, the third respondent / defacto
complainant appeared in person before this Court and would submit that
he has no objections to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the period of
incarceration already undergone, the circumstances which resulted in his
remand and the fact that his presence before the trial Court has now been
secured, this Court is of the view that further incarceration is not
warranted but at the same time, stringent conditions are to be imposed to
ensure his continued presence during the trial before the trial Court.
Consequently, while this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned
order of remand, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and the period of incarceration already undergone by the
__________
Page 14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
petitioner, this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 of the BNSS and in order to secure the ends of justice, is inclined to
order his release on bail, subject to the following conditions.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on
his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction
of the Special Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC / ST Act
cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:
a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb
impressions in the surety bonds and the concerned Court may
obtain copies of their Aadhaar Cards or Bank Pass Books for the
purpose of verifying their identity;
b) the petitioner shall report before the trial Court at 10.30 a.m. on all
working days, including all hearing dates, without fail, until further
orders;
c) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence or
intimidate the witnesses in any manner;
d) the petitioner shall not abscond during the pendency of the trial;
e) in the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the trial
Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in
__________
Page 15 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
accordance with law, as if the conditions had been imposed and the
petitioner had been released on bail by the trial Court itself, as laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji @
Thammanam Shaji v. State of Kerala, reported in (2005) 13 SCC
283; and
f) if the petitioner absconds thereafter, it is open to the respondent
Police to register a fresh case under Section 269 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, if the ingredients thereof are attracted.
10. In the event of any deliberate breach or violation of the
aforesaid conditions, it is open to the prosecution to seek appropriate
orders before the competent Court in accordance with law.
11. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
CSM
To
1. The Special Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act
cases, Pudukkottai (FAC).
__________
Page 16 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
2. Do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai.
3. The Officer-in-Charge, District Jail, Pudukkottai.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Aranthangi,
Pudukottai Distirct.
5. The Inspector Of Police, Nagudi Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page 17 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
CSM
CRL OP(MD) No. 23857 of 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page 18 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:14:49 pm )