Follow us on Google News
The Madras High Court has dismissed petitions filed by four police personnel accused in the custodial death of temple guard Ajith Kumar in Manamadurai, upholding their judicial remand and directing the trial court to complete proceedings within nine months. The court held that the accused should seek bail through the appropriate legal process rather than challenge the remand order under its inherent jurisdiction.
Justice P. Murugan rejected the petitions challenging the remand order passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai District. The petitioners included a Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Inspector and two officers below the rank of Sub-Inspector.
The case concerns the alleged custodial death of Ajith Kumar, who was accused in a criminal complaint and allegedly suffered fatal injuries while in police custody. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
FCRF’s Chief AI Officer Certification Returns on November 14 to Prepare Future AI Leaders
Accused Policemen Challenge Judicial Remand
The CBI named the four police personnel in a supplementary chargesheet filed during its investigation into the custodial death.
Following the framing of charges and questioning of the accused, the trial court ordered their remand to judicial custody.
The officers challenged the order before the Madras High Court, arguing that they were not in custody when the trial court issued the remand direction.
They also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Satender Kumar Antil case, contending that a separate bail application was unnecessary.
The petitioners argued that the trial court’s concerns about possible witness tampering were not supported by the prosecution evidence.
They further submitted that the investigating agency had not arrested them during the investigation because custodial interrogation was considered unnecessary. According to the petitioners, no subsequent development justified their remand.
High Court Says Bail Is the Appropriate Legal Remedy
Rejecting the arguments, Justice Murugan held that the accused had challenged the remand order without disputing the trial court’s legal authority to place them in judicial custody.
The High Court observed that once a reasoned remand order had been passed, the proper course was to approach the appropriate forum for bail.
The court held that invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to set aside the remand order was not the correct legal remedy in these circumstances.
It further clarified that the petitioners could pursue their remedies in accordance with law rather than seek intervention through the High Court’s inherent powers.
The court consequently dismissed the petitions challenging the judicial remand.
Trial Court Directed to Complete Proceedings Within Nine Months
While dismissing the petitions, the Madras High Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and dispose of the custodial death case within nine months from receipt of the order.
The court noted that the prosecution would rely on 146 witnesses, 123 documents and 49 material objects during the trial.
Justice Murugan directed all accused persons to cooperate with the trial court to ensure that proceedings were completed within the stipulated period.
The High Court also authorised the trial court to pass appropriate orders if the accused adopted tactics intended to delay the examination of witnesses or the progress of the trial.
The ruling leaves the accused free to seek bail through the appropriate legal forum while requiring the trial court to complete the case within the nine-month deadline.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
