The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed petitions filed by four police officers seeking to set aside their remand to judicial custody in connection with the custodial death of Ajith Kumar, a temple security guard. In a significant decision, the Court affirmed that once a trial court frames charges for a grave offence such as murder, a bond previously executed under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is no longer sufficient to secure the liberty of the accused. The Court underscored that legal remedies for custody must be pursued through the appropriate bail jurisdiction rather than through the invocation of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The proceedings stem from an incident on June 27, 2025, when the victim, Ajith Kumar, was taken into custody by a special police team following allegations of theft at the Pathrakali Amman Temple. Following his death, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which subsequently filed a supplementary charge sheet naming four additional accused officers: a Deputy Superintendent of Police (A7), an Inspector of Police (A8), and two personnel of lower rank (A9 and A10).

Legal Conflict Over Custodial Status

The accused officers had argued that because the CBI did not arrest them during the investigation, and they had appeared before the committal court in response to summons, their execution of a bond under Section 91 of the BNSS should have protected them from custodial remand. They contended that since the trial court had previously accepted these bonds for their appearance, the subsequent order of remand was illegal, particularly because they had consistently complied with the court’s directives to appear for proceedings.

Rejecting this line of reasoning, the Court observed that the protective nature of a Section 91 bond does not equate to the grant of regular bail. The bench pointed out that the procedural landscape changed significantly when the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, framed charges against the accused for serious offences, including murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), read with common intention provisions.

In its judgment, the Court noted: “Once charges for a major offence are framed, the accused is required to surrender before the competent Court and seek bail. However, the accused have failed to do so.”

The Court further clarified that the previous protective orders issued in June 2026 were specific to the committal stage and did not offer a perpetual immunity against arrest or remand after the formal framing of charges for heinous crimes.

Judicial Reasoning on Serious Offences

Dr. Justice P. Murugan, delivering the verdict, emphasized that the judiciary must maintain a balance between the personal liberty of the accused and the necessity of ensuring a fair, uninfluenced trial, particularly when those accused of custodial violence are themselves members of the police force. The Court referenced various Supreme Court precedents to affirm that the addition of major, non-bailable offences during a trial necessitates a fresh application for bail.

The judgment explicitly warned against the tendency of litigants to bypass established bail procedures by filing petitions under Section 528 of the BNSS. The Court reasoned: “In the present case, the accused merely challenging the order of remand under section 528 of BNSS without approaching bail jurisdiction is not correct way. Once the accused have been remanded to judicial custody with a reasoned order, they must work out their remedy before the appropriate forum.”

The bench further addressed the apprehension of witness tampering, a point highlighted by the intervenor representing the deceased’s family. Given the hierarchy and the sensitive nature of the evidence, which involves 146 witnesses and over 120 documents, the Court found the trial judge’s decision to commit the accused to judicial custody to be a sound exercise of discretion intended to ensure the integrity of the ongoing trial.

Expediting the Judicial Process

As the trial transitions into its substantive stage, the High Court took measures to ensure the case does not languish. Acknowledging the weight of the evidence and the need for public confidence in the judicial process, the Court issued a strict deadline for the proceedings. The V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, has been directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the final judgment is delivered within nine months from the date of receiving the order.

The High Court has instructed all parties, including the accused, to cooperate fully with the trial court. It further clarified that should the accused engage in any dilatory tactics during the examination of witnesses, the trial judge retains the discretion to pass appropriate orders based on the prevailing circumstances. The accused remain in judicial custody and must now pursue their applications for regular bail through the appropriate legal channels, if they choose to do so. This ruling reinforces the judicial stance that procedural bonds meant for appearance cannot be weaponized to circumvent the stringent requirements of bail in cases involving severe penal allegations.