Court clarifies that bond under Section 91 BNSS is for securing appearance only and does not amount to bail; accused must seek regular bail after framing of major charges punishable with death or life imprisonment.
In a significant judgment dated November 4, 2026, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, led by Justice Dr. P. Murugan, dismissed four petitions challenging the remand of four police officials (Accused Nos. 7 to 10) to judicial custody in a high-profile custodial death case. The case involves the death of Ajith Kumar, a security guard, allegedly at the hands of a special crime team comprising police officers, including the accused, during investigation of a theft complaint.
The investigation initially led to the arrest and remand of six accused persons (A1 to A6). Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a supplementary charge sheet against four additional accused (A7 to A10), who were police officials of higher ranks. Unlike the initial accused, A7 to A10 were not arrested during the investigation. Instead, they appeared on summons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and furnished bonds under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which was accepted by the CJM, securing their appearance for trial.
The High Court had earlier, by a common order dated June 15, 2026, dismissed anticipatory bail petitions filed by A7 to A10, holding that execution of the Section 91 BNSS bond before the committal Court sufficed to secure their appearance and that no further anticipatory bail was necessary at that stage. The magistrate was also directed not to remand the accused to custody while committing the case to the Sessions Court.
However, after the Sessions Court framed serious charges against all accused, including A7 to A10, under Sections 140(1), 103(1) (murder), 120(2) (criminal conspiracy), 127(8), 61(2), 238, 256, 337, and others of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), carrying punishments up to death sentence, the Sessions Judge remanded A7 to A10 to judicial custody under Section 346 BNSS. The accused challenged this remand order before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, contending that their prior bond under Section 91 BNSS was sufficient protection and that the remand was illegal without cancelling the bond first.
The Madras High Court, after extensive analysis, upheld the Sessions Court's remand order, holding that:
1. Nature of Section 91 BNSS Bond: The bond executed under Section 91 BNSS is solely for securing the accused's appearance before the Court. It does not amount to bail or confer any right to liberty. Thus, it cannot bar the Sessions Court from remanding an accused in custody after framing serious charges.
2. Effect of Framing of Serious Charges: Once the Sessions Court framed charges punishable by death or imprisonment exceeding seven years, the case falls under Category B as per the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022). Accused in such category must seek bail on merits and cannot rely on the earlier bond executed for less serious offences.
3. Requirement of Bail Application: Since A7 to A10 did not file bail applications after framing of serious charges, the Sessions Court was justified in remanding them to judicial custody under Section 346 BNSS. The remand order cannot be set aside by invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS as a substitute for the bail remedy.
4. No Necessity to Cancel Section 91 Bond Before Remand: The Court rejected the contention that the bond under Section 91 BNSS must be cancelled before remanding the accused. The bond and bail bond are distinct legal concepts, and the Sessions Court's power to remand for a serious non-bailable offence remains unaffected by an existing Section 91 bond.
5. Possibility of Witness Tampering: Given the accused are police officials and the gravity of the offence involving custodial death, the Sessions Court's concerns of witness intimidation and ensuring a fair trial justified remanding A7 to A10 to custody.
6. Procedural Directions: The High Court directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within nine months, noting the large volume of evidence and witnesses involved.
The judgment reiterates that bonds under Section 91 BNSS are procedural tools to secure attendance and are not substitutes for bail, especially when serious charges are framed. It also emphasizes the accused's duty to seek bail from the competent Court after framing of grave charges. Further, the Court upheld the Sessions Court's discretion to remand accused when necessary to prevent interference with witnesses and ensure trial fairness, particularly where accused are police officials implicated in custodial death.
This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on bail and custody post-charge framing and clarifies procedural aspects under the new BNSS and BNS statutes, affirming the importance of procedural safeguards balanced against public interest and fair trial imperatives.
Bottom Line:
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Bond executed under Section 91 BNSS on appearance before committal Court is only to secure appearance and does not amount to grant of bail - Where Sessions Court, at stage of framing charges, frames graver charges punishable with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, case falls under Category B of Satender Kumar Antil and accused must seek regular bail - Sessions Court can remand accused to judicial custody under Section 346 BNSS even without cancelling Section 91 bond - Remand order cannot be set aside by invoking inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS when remedy of bail is available.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 91, 346, 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 103(1), 49, 140(1), 120(2), 127(8), 61(2), 238, 256, 337.
S.P.Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3012047
