Four police personnel charged in Ajith Kumar custodial death must seek bail, not undo remand, Madras HC rules
Justice P. Murugan of the Madurai Bench refused to set aside the 10 September 2026 remand of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Inspector and two junior personnel, holding that a Section 91 BNSS bond is no substitute for bail once a murder charge is framed. He told the Sessions Court to finish the trial within nine months.
On 10 September 2026 four policemen walked into a Madurai courtroom as men the CBI had never arrested. They were in court when the judge framed charges of abetting murder, and they left in judicial custody. On 4 November the Madras High Court refused to undo that remand.
Justice P. Murugan, sitting at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, dismissed four petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He confirmed the remand and directed the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, to dispose of S.C. No. 709 of 2025 within nine months.
The case is the custodial death of Ajith Kumar, a temple security guard. Six police personnel were charged first, and four more were added later. This report covers only the four who challenged their remand.
A missing-gold complaint and a death
On 27 June 2025 a woman and her aged mother visited a temple at Madappuram, where Ajith Kumar worked as a security guard. The woman complained that 9.5 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs 2,500 were missing from her car. She suspected him.
He was brought to Tiruppuvanam Police Station for inquiry. The prosecution says a special crime team, working under the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub-Division, detained him over the alleged theft.
The team members, shown as A1 to A6, are alleged to have assaulted him. He sustained injuries and died. The first case was registered as Crime No. 303 of 2025 at Tiruppuvanam Police Station.
A Division Bench of the High Court transferred the investigation to the CBI, and a Tamil Nadu Government Order followed. The judgment dates the High Court’s transfer order to 1 July 2025.
Two charge sheets, two sets of accused
The CBI first filed a police report against A1 to A6, with murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita among the offences. It arrested them, and they have been in judicial custody since the FIR. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, committed that case to the Sessions Court.
On a further direction of the Division Bench, the CBI filed a supplementary charge sheet against four more people. A7 is N. Shanmugasundaram, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, shown as under suspension. A8 is S.P. Ramesh Kumar, an Inspector.
A9 is S. Sivakumar and A10 is G. Ilayaraja, both below the rank of sub-inspector. All four filed the petitions before the High Court.
The supplementary charge sheet named Sections 61(2) read with 127(2), 238 and 337 of the BNS. These cover criminal conspiracy read with wrongful confinement, causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen an offender, and forgery of court records, public registers and official identity documents. The court noted that all carry a maximum of seven years.
There was no murder charge against the four in that report. The CBI did not arrest them, and the charge sheet recorded as much.
The June order protecting the four
The Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the four. They appeared and, as directed, executed bonds under Section 91 of the BNSS with substantial sureties.
Fearing remand at committal, they moved anticipatory bail petitions in the High Court. On 15 June 2026 those were disposed of together. The court held that the Section 91 bonds were enough for appearance before the committal court, and directed the Magistrate not to remand them to custody while committing the case.
The case then went to the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, as S.C. No. 709 of 2025. The four appeared on eight dates between 29 July and 10 September 2026.
On 28 August 2026 the High Court rejected bail for A6, P. Ramachandran, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 15373 of 2026. It observed that if charges carrying more than seven years were framed against A7 to A10, their cases would fall in Category B of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
Their bonds could not then be treated as bail orders, the court said, and they would have to seek bail from the competent court.
Murder charges, then remand the same day
On 10 September 2026 the Sessions Court framed charges against all ten accused. For A7 to A10 it framed abetment of murder under Section 103(1) read with Section 49 of the BNS, alongside conspiracy and other offences.
The order records that the maximum punishment on the murder charge is death. All ten accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The trial court then asked whether the four would seek bail. Their counsel said no bail application had been filed because they had executed bonds, and argued they should not be remanded as they had appeared regularly and the CBI had never sought custody.
The Special Public Prosecutor pointed to the gravity of the allegations, the positions the four held, and the risk of influencing witnesses. The trial judge remanded them to judicial custody under Section 346 of the BNSS.
The trial court held that a Section 91 bond is not bail, citing Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement. It also held that the High Court’s 15 June order bound only the Magistrate, and that Category B required the accused to seek bail on merits.
Four petitions, four sets of arguments
Senior Advocate R. Gandhi, for A8 S.P. Ramesh Kumar, led the challenge. Senior Advocate T. Lajapathy Roy appeared for A9, Senior Advocate S. Chellapandian for A7, and Mr A. Raja for A10.
For the CBI, Special Public Prosecutor N. Mohideen Basha opposed all four. Senior Advocate Nithya Ramakrishnan, joining by video from New Delhi, appeared for Ajith Kumar’s brother Naveen Kumar, who was impleaded as respondent 11 on 24 September 2026.
The accused argued that a remand under Section 346 could not be ordered against men who were never in custody. They relied on Tarsem Lal to say that appearing on summons does not amount to custody, so no separate bail application was needed.
They also read paragraph 89 of Antil as saying no court-ordered arrest is needed where the prosecution consciously chose not to arrest. They said the 15 June order had protected them, and that the bond had never been cancelled.
On facts, they said no prosecution witness had spoken of any role played by A8, and nothing showed tampering. The allegation against A9 was limited to fabricating a general diary, they said, and the forensic report named nothing against A7.
What the CBI and the brother said
The CBI said the June protection ran only until committal. Once the Sessions Court framed a charge carrying death, it argued, the case fell in Category B and the accused had to surrender and seek bail. It cited Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Pankaj Jain v. Union of India.
Ms Ramakrishnan added that the bond protected the accused only against the lesser offences. She relied on Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote for the risk of intimidation by policemen who are themselves accused, and on Hamida v. Rashid for the rule that bail on lesser offences does not extend to a graver one.
Counsel for the intervenor placed Witness Protection Scheme orders of the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, before the court. He said the Inspector at Tiruppuvanam and the Deputy Superintendent at Manamadurai had still not given witnesses adequate protection. He added that A10 had filed a bail application in the Sessions Court and could not pursue both routes.
The question the court set itself
The judge framed a single point for consideration:
“whether the remand order dated 10.09.2026 passed by the trial Court as far as A7 to A10 are concerned illegal and to set aside, thereby enabling them to be released from prison and face the trial in the Sessions Case?” (para 19)
He noted there was no quarrel that a remand passed after charge framing can be challenged under Section 528. The court still had to decide whether the remand was justified, and he held that it was.
Why a Section 91 bond is not bail
The court examined Tarsem Lal, the accused’s main authority. That case arose from a private complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, with offences punishable by up to seven years. The Supreme Court held there that a bond under Section 88 of the CrPC, now Section 91 of the BNSS, is not a grant of bail.
If a bond cannot be equated with bail for a seven-year offence, the judge reasoned, it cannot stand in for bail on a murder charge. The accused, he held, ought to have sought bail once that charge was framed.
He set out the four Antil categories. Category A covers offences up to seven years, and Category B covers death, life or more than seven years.
Category C covers special Acts with stringent bail conditions, and Category D covers offences outside those Acts. The present case, he held, fell in Category B.
The court did not disturb the bonds altogether. It held that they may remain in force for the offences in the supplementary charge sheet, where, under Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, arrest need not be mechanical.
What the accused should have done
Once the abetment-of-murder charge was framed, the judge said, the trial court called on the four to say whether they would file for bail. Their counsel should have filed a bail application, or asked for time to surrender or approach the High Court.
Instead they stood on the bonds, though their anticipatory bail pleas had been dismissed on the footing that the bonds sufficed only for the committal court. The judge noted that the 28 August order applied to them unless set aside, and that they did not claim to be unaware of it.
On the law he held:
“the accused must have to seek regular bail for the major offence” (para 52)
He listed Antil, Pradeep Ram, Pankaj Jain, Niranjan Singh, Sumit, Hamida and Prahlad Singh Bhati as supporting that rule. Bail granted on a lesser offence does not carry over to a graver one added later.
Cases cited that did not decide it
Mr Gandhi had cited Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, on the rule that an accused not arrested during investigation should be asked to appear and furnish bail, not be formally arrested after the charge sheet.
He added Jaildar Singh v. State of the Madras High Court, a Bombay High Court ruling in Santosh Balkrishna Nadgaonkar, and the Delhi High Court’s Sharad Kumar v. CBI.
Mr Roy cited Shahid Yousuf v. National Investigation Agency and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI to show that Section 528 reaches remand orders. The judge said there was no quarrel on that point.
The CBI relied on further authority, including State by the Inspector of Police, Chennai v. S. Selvi on the limited weighing of material at the charge stage. The judgment extracts these arguments at length but, in its reasoning, rests on the Supreme Court line set out above.
Police rank and the risk to witnesses
The judge agreed with the trial court that the accused were police officials, with a real chance of intimidating witnesses. A7 is a Deputy Superintendent of Police, A8 an Inspector, and A9 and A10 are of lower rank.
He noted that the special team that allegedly beat Ajith Kumar worked under A7. On that basis, he said, there may be a connivance between the four and A1 to A6, and the trial court was right to remand them in the interest of a fair trial.
Why Section 528 was the wrong door
The court then turned to the route taken. The petitioners said Section 528 allows such a challenge, and the prosecution did not dispute it. The judge nonetheless held that once a trial court remands an accused by a reasoned order, the remedy lies in the bail jurisdiction.
It was not the accused’s case that the court lacked power to remand them, he noted. Those who want to challenge a remand can do so before the appropriate forum, rather than asking the High Court to set it aside under its inherent powers.
On A10, he went further. A10 had already applied for bail in the Sessions Court, and that application was pending when he filed in the High Court. The judge held that an accused must elect between challenging the remand and invoking bail jurisdiction, and cannot do both.
He concluded that every principle and decision cited by both sides operated against the petitioners, and that their grounds had no merit.
Nine months for 146 witnesses
All accused counsel had told the court they did not seek a stay of the trial court’s order, given an earlier High Court direction for an expeditious trial. The Investigating Officer, however, said witnesses would not be produced until these petitions were decided.
Naveen Kumar argued that this assurance and the earlier direction could not both be honoured. The earlier direction had given the trial court eight months.
The record shows 103 witnesses, 102 documents and 14 articles in the first charge sheet. The supplementary report adds 43 witnesses, 21 documents and 35 articles. In all, the trial will involve 146 witnesses, 123 documents and 49 articles.
Taking that volume into account, the judge ordered the trial court to expedite the trial. All accused were directed to cooperate, and the trial court was left free to pass appropriate orders if any of them adopt delaying tactics.
Order
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 20517, 21736, 22253 and 22762 of 2026 were dismissed. The 10 September 2026 remand order of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 709 of 2025, against A7 to A10, was confirmed.
The trial court was directed to dispose of the case within nine months from receipt of a copy of the order. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. Judgment was reserved on 30 September 2026 in three petitions and on 1 October 2026 in the fourth, and delivered on 4 November 2026.