CRL OP(MD)/23563/2026 of Manoj @ Manoj Prabakaran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 15 October 2026

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by 1st accused in Spl.S.C.No.47 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2026.

2. The petitioner herein is charged with offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A Non- Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against the petitioner on 28.06.2022 due to his non-appearance before the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered before the Court and filed a surrender petition, pursuant to which the NBW was recalled on 01.02.2024. Subsequently, as the petitioner again failed to appear regularly before the Court, a second NBW was issued against him on 24.02.2025. The said NBW was executed, and the petitioner was arrested and produced before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, on __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:35 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 23563 of 2026 27.08.2026. On the same day, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned remand order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to explain the reasons for his non-appearance before the trial Court. In such circumstances, the impugned order of remand passed by the trial Court is bad in law. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Pillappan @ Ravikumar v. State, reported in 2018 (3) CTC 156.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent police pointed out that, after the passing of the impugned order of remand, the petitioner herein had filed a regular bail application in Crl.M.P.No. 430 of 2026, which came to be dismissed on 18.09.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A. (MD) No. 1177 of 2026 before this Court. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of remand, dated 28.09.2026. Availing himself of the said liberty, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Original Petition seeking to set aside the order of remand. __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:35 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 23563 of 2026

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, had the petitioner been afforded a proper opportunity to explain the reasons for his absence, the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) could have been recalled by the Court concerned. It is further contended that there was no necessity for the trial Court to remand the petitioner, particularly when he had already been granted regular bail.

6. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. It could be seen from the order of remand that the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, had specifically put a query to the petitioner regarding the reasons for his non-appearance before the Court. The learned Judge recorded a specific finding that the petitioner was unable to provide any valid reason for his non-appearance from 28.06.2022. The date of non-appearance, however, appears to have been erroneously mentioned, as 28.06.2022 which had already been recalled on 01.02.2024. The impugned order of remand was passed pursuant to the second NBW issued on 24.02.2025. __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:35 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 23563 of 2026 The erroneous reference to the date of non-appearance would not, by itself, affect the validity of the order of remand, particularly when the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to explain the reasons for his non- appearance and the explanation offered by him was found to be unsatisfactory by the Court concerned. In such circumstances, the impugned order of remand cannot be challenged on the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to avail himself of the remedy of seeking regular bail before the Court concerned. However, the petitioner has already availed himself of the said remedy, and his bail application was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed as withdrawn.

8. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial Court by filing a second bail application, and in case, if any such application is filed, the same shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law. __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:35 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 23563 of 2026

9. With the said observations, this Criminal Original Petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gvn __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:35 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 23563 of 2026 To

1. The III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, Madurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:35 pm )

CRL OP(MD) No. 23563 of 2026 R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. gvn CRL OP(MD) No. 23563 of 2026 15-10-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 12:53:35 pm )