CRL OP(MD)/25896/2026 of Vignesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep. by on 12 November 2026

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by A8 in Spl. SC No.159 of 2017 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur, seeking to set aside the order of remand, dated 09.10.2026.

2. Perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner is facing trial for the alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 307, 506(2) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015.

3. The petitioner had not appeared before the Court on 21.09.2026 and NBW was issued on the same day. The petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court on 09.10.2026 and prayed for recalling of the NBW. However, the said petition has been dismissed and petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody under the impugned order.

4. Perusal of the order reveals that the Court has recorded a finding that because of the absence of the petitioner, the witnesses could not be examined and the petitioner had purposely remained absent and the counsel of the petitioner has not filed any application under section 317 of Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is the first time that he could not appear before the trial Court and the non-appearance is due to his illness. Since the Advocates were on boycott on that day, an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., could not be filed. Therefore, his non-appearance on the said date is neither wilful nor wanton. He further submitted that without seeking any explanation from the petitioner relating to his non-appearance, an order of remand has been passed mechanically. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in Crl.OP(MD) No.23354 of 2026, dated 16.10.2026.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

7. As could be seen from the records, the trial Court has rejected the request of the petitioner to recall NBW for his non- appearance on 21.09.2026 and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody. The petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 30 days.

8. This Court in Crl.OP(MD) No.23354 of 2026, dated 16.10.2026 between S.Mahesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu, had an occasion to consider the issue relating to a recall of NBW and the procedure to be followed by the trial Court. The paragraph numbers 19 and 20 of the said order are extracted as follows: “19. The principles that emerge from the above pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court may be summarised thus:

(a) Where an accused who is on bail in a bailable/ non-bailable offence fails to appear on a hearing date without seeking dispensation of his presence, the trial Court may issue a non- bailable warrant to secure his presence under Section 89 of Cr.P.C. (Section 92 of BNSS).

(b) Upon his arrest and production before the Court, the accused shall be afforded an opportunity to explain why he failed to appear from the particular date onwards.

(c) Should the accused seek time to offer his explanation, he may be remanded to judicial custody pending such enquiry.

(d) If the explanation is found satisfactory, the trial Court may recall the non-bailable warrant and let him off, invoking Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. (Section 72(2) of BNSS).

(e) If the explanation is not satisfactory, the trial Court shall record its reasons and render a finding that the bond stands forfeited.

(f) Such an order of forfeiture of the bond shall not, by itself, visit the sureties with any consequence under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.; a separate notice to the sureties is required to initiate proceedings under that provision.

(g) Independent of any proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C., the Court is competent to proceed against the accused under Section 446-A of Cr.P.C. for breach of the bond.

(h) Once the Court records a finding that the bail bond has been forfeited, the bail bond stands automatically cancelled, and consequently, the bail also stands cancelled.

20. Once the bail stands cancelled, the accused may be released only upon executing a fresh personal bond or surety bond in terms of the proviso to Section 446-A of Cr.P.C. Where the bail bond and the order of bail stand cancelled, the remand of the accused would be under Section 309(2) of Cr.P.C., and not under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.”

9. In the present case, the trial Court has passed the impugned remand order without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his non-appearance on 21.09.2026. The trial Court has also not recorded any finding that the bail bond stood forfeited. The petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 30 days. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for the trial Court will serve no purpose.

10. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: • The order of remand, dated 09.10.2026 passed as against the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur in Crl.M.P.No.649 of 2026 in Spl.SC No.159 of 2017 is hereby set aside; • The petitioner shall be released on bail on condition that he shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearings and on such terms as to the bond and sureties as may be fixed by the trial Court, so as to secure his continued participation in the trial.

11. With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

12-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy on today (12.11.2026) PNM

To

1. The Sessions Judge, I Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Thanjavur

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Thanjavur Sub-Division, Thanjavur District

3. The Inspector of Police Naducauvery Police Station Thanjavur District

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

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. PNM CRL OP(MD) No. 25896 of 2026 12-11-2026