Remand after a bail-related non-bailable warrant requires hearing the accused and recording bond forfeiture.

The petitioner, facing charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, had been released on regular bail.

After he failed to appear during trial, the Special Court issued a non-bailable warrant; on its execution on 14 July 2026, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody.

His application for bail was dismissed by the trial court, and his subsequent appeal was dismissed with liberty to challenge the remand order on the ground that his earlier bail had not been cancelled in accordance with *Pillappan v. State*.

The petitioner challenged the remand, contending that he had been given no opportunity to explain his absence and that his original bail remained in force.

The remand order recorded arrest-related formalities but did not address his non-appearance or any explanation for it.

By the time of decision, he had been in custody for more than 90 days.

Under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C., remand during trial is distinct from remand under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.; an accused produced under a non-bailable warrant for non-appearance must be afforded an opportunity to explain the absence, and the court must consider the explanation before deciding whether to forfeit the bond and remand the accused (*State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar*, para. 16, p. 7; *Pillappan v. State*, paras 18–19, pp. 9–13).

Under Sections 446 and 446-A Cr.P.C., forfeiture requires the court to record its finding after considering the accused’s explanation; once forfeiture is found, the bond stands cancelled, while proceedings against sureties under Section 446 require separate notice (*Prabhakaran v. State*, para. 17, pp. 8–9; *Pillappan*, para. 19, pp. 9–13).

The judgment also identifies Section 92 BNSS as corresponding to Section 89 Cr.P.C. for securing an accused’s presence, and Section 72(2) BNSS as corresponding to Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for recalling a warrant.

The trial court treated the petitioner’s production as though it were an arrest during investigation and recorded only formal remand matters, without considering the distinct requirements applicable to a trial-stage remand under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C.

It neither gave the petitioner an opportunity to explain his absence nor recorded a finding that his bond was forfeited; accordingly, the bond had not been shown to have been cancelled in the manner set out in *Pillappan*.

Given these defects and the petitioner’s custody exceeding 90 days, the Court concluded that setting aside the remand and returning the matter to the trial court would serve no useful purpose.

It directed the petitioner’s release on bail, subject to terms and bond or sureties fixed by the trial court, and required him to appear before that court at 10:30 a.m. every day until further orders.