(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to call for records in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2025 pending on the file of the Special Court for Trial of SC / ST Act cases, Pudukkottai in connection with Crime No.27 of 2025 on the file of the second respondent police and set aside the NBW order dated 17.03.2026 in Cr.M.P.No.254 of 2026 in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2025 and to direct release of petitioner on same bail bond.)

1. The above petition has been filed, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the order dated 20.07.2026, 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 17.03.2026.

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.27 of 2025 under Sections 296(b), 232, 351(2) BNS r/w Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) of SC / ST (POA) Amendment Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2025 and he moved a petition seeking bail in Crl.M.P.No.34 of 2025 and the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST Act Cases, Pudukkottai, granted bail by imposing necessary conditions vide order dated 20.02.2025. Subsequently, charge sheet came to be filed and the case was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2025 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 17.03.2026 and the same came to be executed and he was arrested on 20.07.2026 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.254 of 2026 and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 14.08.2026, 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.1022 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. 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 11.09.2026, 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 20.07.2026.

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. 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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. 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 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, subject to the following conditions.

25. 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:

                   (i) 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;

                   (ii) 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;

                   (iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence or intimidate the witnesses in any manner;

                   (iv) the petitioner shall not abscond during the pendency of the trial;

                   (v) in the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in 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

                   (vi) 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.

26. 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.

27. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.