S.P.Ramesh Kumar vs Union Of India

L.Victoria Gowri, J

The learned senior counsel Mr.R.Gandhi submitted that the petitioner is the 8th accused in the pending PRC.No.641 of 2025 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

The case was one with respect to a death which had occurred due to police excess, in which, already at the time of investigation, 6 accused were arrested and were remanded to custody, and they are still undergoing incarceration. On completion of the investigation, a final report was laid on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in PRC.No.641 of 2025 for the offences under section 61(2) read with 127(2), 238, and 337 of BNSS, 2023 / 120 (b) read with 342, 201, and 466 IPC. Thereafter, further investigation was also conducted in which a supplementary charge sheet was laid implicating 4 more police officers, A-7 to A-10, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police (A-7), Inspector of Police (A-8), and two Head Constables (A-9 and A-10).

He further pointed out that even after adding them in the supplementary charge sheet as A-7 to A-10, they were not arrested. Pursuant to the same, summons were issued by the learned Committal Court and on receipt of the same, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, on 25.02.2026 and executed the surety bond to the satisfaction of the Committal Court and the case was further posted today, i.e., on 05.03.2026 for committal.

When the matter came up today before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, he expressed his likeliness to remand the accused added in the supplementary charge sheet to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial, invoking Section 232(b) of BNSS, 2023. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned senior counsel relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 categorically contended that the Investigating Officer had deemed it fit not to arrest the petitioner and all the other 3 persons added as accused in the supplementary charge sheet all through his investigation before laying the additional charge sheet, and later on receipt of summons from the Committal Court, the petitioner had duly appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and had also promptly executed surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Committal Court. Under such circumstances, the observation made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, had created an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the learned Committal Court invoking the provision under Section 232(b) BNSS, 2023, may remand the petitioner and other accused who were added in the supplementary charge sheet to custody.

However, such an exercise is not warranted since already the petitioner had satisfied the condition under Section 91 of BNSS, 2023. When the petitioner had clearly satisfied the Committal Court already by executing surety bonds, ensuring his appearance in the Committal Court or before the learned Trial Court or any other Court, the question of remanding the petitioner and 3 other persons who were added in the supplementary charge sheet who were not deemed fit to be arrested by the Investigating Officer until the date of execution of surety bonds will not arise. It is made clear that the provisions under section 91 BNSS 2023 obviously satisfy the requirements of bail, and hence the question of invoking powers under section 232 (b) BNSS 2023 will not arise.

Mr. Mahideen Basha appeared for the CBI, stated strong objection, and required time for filing counter on behalf of CBI.

Hence, this Court is inclined to pass an order directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, to keep the matter in abeyance till the respondent files a counter affidavit on 12.03.2026, in this case.