Case at a Glance
Four accused (A7 to A10) in the CBI case over the death of temple security guard Ajith Kumar, who died after alleged assault by police officials in June 2025, had never been arrested and had executed bonds under Section 91 BNSS. When the Madurai Sessions Court framed charges on 10 September 2026, including murder under Section 103(1) BNS read with abetment against them, it remanded them to judicial custody under Section 346 BNSS. The Madurai Bench held that a Section 91 bond is not bail, that once a charge punishable with more than seven years is added the accused must seek bail on it, and that a judicial remand cannot be set aside under the inherent powers of Section 528 BNSS. It dismissed all four petitions, confirmed the remand and directed the trial to be completed within nine months.
Ajith Kumar, a temple security guard, was detained in June 2025 over an alleged theft of gold and cash from a complainant’s car and died after alleged assault by police officials. The case, first registered at Tiruppuvanam Police Station, was transferred to the CBI, which charge-sheeted A1 to A6, who were arrested. A supplementary charge-sheet against A7 to A10 alleged lesser offences punishable up to seven years; the CBI did not arrest them, and they appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and executed bonds under Section 91 BNSS. By a common order of 15 June 2026, the High Court held the bonds sufficient for appearance before the committal court and directed that they not be remanded while committal proceeded.
On 10 September 2026, the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, framed charges against all ten accused in S.C. No. 709 of 2025, including murder under Section 103(1) BNS read with Section 49 (abetment) against A7 to A10, and remanded them to judicial custody under Section 346 BNSS. The four accused challenged the remand, arguing that their bonds had never been cancelled, that they had always appeared, and that the earlier protection continued. The CBI and the deceased’s brother, impleaded as intervenor, argued that the protection ended at committal and pointed to a risk of tampering with witnesses.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the trial court’s order remanding A7 to A10 after framing a murder charge illegal, given that they had executed Section 91 BNSS bonds and had been protected from remand during committal?
A Section 91 Bond Is Not Bail, and a Heavier Charge Needs Fresh Bail
Relying on Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Dr. Justice P. Murugan held that a bond under Section 91 BNSS “cannot be equated to the bail bond” for the murder charge. Placing the case in Category B of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 07 SC CK 0064, which covers offences punishable with more than seven years, the Court held that once such a charge is added the accused must seek bail on that charge, even if they had protection on lesser offences, citing authorities including Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 07 SC CK 0053, Pankaj Jain v. Union of India, Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 03 SC CK 0013 and Hamida v. Rashid. It also referred to Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 07 SC CK 0068 on arrest for offences up to seven years, and treated its 28 August 2026 order rejecting A6’s bail as applicable, since it predated the framing of charges.
The Court held that the trial court could remand the accused under Section 346(2) BNSS after framing charges, noting that the accused are police officers, the possible risk of witness intimidation or tampering, and that A1 to A6 were already in custody. On remedy, it held that a judicial remand order “cannot be set aside under section 528 of BNSS”; the accused must seek bail before the competent court. A10, who had a bail application pending, had to elect: “he cannot be permitted simultaneously to have the order of remand be set aside.” Concluding that “all the accused submissions and grounds raised in these proceedings do not have any merit”, and noting 146 witnesses, 123 documents and 49 material objects, the Court directed an expedited trial.
What the Court Actually Held
- A bond executed under Section 91 BNSS is not bail and does not cover a graver charge later framed.
- When a charge punishable with more than seven years is added, the accused must seek bail on that charge; the trial court may remand under Section 346(2) BNSS.
- A judicial remand order cannot be set aside in inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS; an accused cannot pursue bail and a challenge to remand simultaneously.
- All four petitions were dismissed, the remand of 10 September 2026 was confirmed, and the Sessions Court was directed to dispose of S.C. No. 709 of 2025 within nine months.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies the status of unarrested accused who appear on Section 91 BNSS bonds when the trial court later frames a graver charge.
- It confirms that the proper remedy against a post-charge remand is a bail application, not a petition to quash the remand.
- It pushes a high-profile custodial death trial towards a time-bound conclusion.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused and Families
- Protection given during committal does not automatically continue once a murder charge is framed.
- Apply for bail on the new charge before the competent court rather than challenging the remand.
- Do not run a bail plea and a remand challenge at the same time; the Court asks you to choose.
For Counsel
- Cite Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement carefully: a Section 91 bond secures appearance, it is not bail.
- Map the offence to the Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI categories when a charge is altered.
- Address witness-tampering concerns with specific material where the accused are officials.
Key Takeaways
- A Section 91 BNSS bond is not a bail bond.
- Addition of a serious charge at the framing stage can justify remand under Section 346(2) BNSS.
- Section 528 BNSS inherent powers will not be used to set aside a judicial remand.
- The custodial death trial must be decided within nine months.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why were the police accused remanded although they had not been arrested?
Because the trial court framed a murder charge (with abetment) against them, and the High Court held that their Section 91 BNSS bonds were not bail for that graver charge.
Can a remand order be quashed under Section 528 BNSS?
The Court held it cannot; the accused must apply for bail before the competent court.
What deadline did the High Court set?
The V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, must dispose of S.C. No. 709 of 2025 within nine months from receipt of the order.
Conclusion
The Madurai Bench drew a clear line between a bond that secures appearance and bail for a serious offence, leaving the police accused to seek bail in the ordinary way while ensuring the trial does not drag on.
Practical takeaway: When charges are enhanced at the framing stage, file a bail application on the new charge promptly; challenging the remand in inherent jurisdiction is unlikely to succeed.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com