Custodial-Death Case: Madras HC Upholds Remand Of 4 Police Officers After Murder-Abetment Charges, Citing Witness-Tampering Risk

The petitioners, accused A7–A10 in a custodial-death prosecution, were not arrested during the CBI’s further investigation.

After the supplementary charge sheet alleged offences carrying punishment up to seven years, they appeared before the committal court on summons and furnished bonds under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

This Court had directed that they not be remanded while the case was being committed to the Sessions Court.

On 10 September 2026, the Sessions Court framed charges against them including abetment of murder under Sections 103(1) read with 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and remanded them to judicial custody under Section 346(1) BNSS.

They challenged the remand under Section 528 BNSS, contending, among other things, that their appearance bonds and prior protection precluded remand.

The prosecution and the deceased’s brother argued that the bonds were not bail, the charges had materially changed, and the Sessions Court had power to remand them.

Section 91 BNSS permits a court to require a bond to secure a person’s appearance; such an appearance bond is distinct from a bail order and does not itself grant bail, as recognised in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 7 SCC 61.

Under Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven years fall within Category B, for which bail is considered on the merits.

The Court also relied on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2019 SC 3193, and Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, for the principle that bail or protection relating to lesser offences does not automatically extend to a subsequently added graver offence; bail must be sought for the graver charge.

The Court held that Section 528 BNSS was not the appropriate route to undo this remand order where the petitioners could seek bail before the competent court.

The Court treated the earlier order of 15 June 2026 as limited to preventing remand by the committal court while committing the case; it did not amount to bail or bind the Sessions Court after charges were framed.

The Section 91 bonds therefore did not protect the petitioners from remand once the Sessions Court framed Category B charges carrying a possible death sentence.

The Court considered the trial court’s stated concerns about the gravity of the allegations, the petitioners’ police positions, and the risk of witness interference, and concluded that the remand should stand.

It further held that the petitioners should pursue bail rather than seek to set aside the remand through inherent jurisdiction; it noted that A10 had already applied for bail, making a simultaneous challenge to the remand inappropriate.

It directed the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, to complete the trial within nine months of receiving the order and directed the accused to cooperate.