In Venkat @ Venkatachalam v. The State (Crl.O.P. No. 32049 of 2026, decided 10 November 2026), Justice N. Ramesh of the Madras High Court granted a third bail application under Section 483 BNSS to an accused standing trial before the POCSO Special Court, Tiruvallur — an accused who had earlier been granted bail, failed to appear, and been rearrested on a non-bailable warrant. The order is a careful study in how courts balance an absconding history against trial stagnation, and in the conditions that make such a balance workable.
The case in one view
| Case | Venkat @ Venkatachalam v. The State, Crl.O.P. No. 32049 of 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Madras, Justice N. Ramesh |
| Decided | 10 November 2026 |
| Offences | Sections 354A(2), 376(2)(n), 506(ii) IPC; Sections 5(i), 5(j)(ii) read with 6 and 21(1), POCSO Act — Crime No. 04/2018, All Women P.S., Tiruvallur |
| Posture | Third regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS; rearrested on NBW on 17 August 2026 after earlier non-appearance |
| Outcome | Bail granted; daily reporting at 10:30 a.m.; trial to be completed in four months |
A trial that stopped moving
The prosecution dates from 2018; the Special Court trial has been pending since 2019. Ten prosecution witnesses were examined between 2019 and 2025 — and then the case stalled. The petitioner, who had been on bail, failed to appear; a non-bailable warrant issued on 12 February 2025; he was arrested and remanded on 17 August 2026. By the hearing date he had spent roughly two months and three weeks back in custody, with the case posted for PWs 13 to 17 just two days later.
The State’s opposition rested on the obvious point: a man who jumped bail once has forfeited the court’s confidence. The defence’s answer was equally direct: the trial had made no progress since 2024, and custody was running while nothing happened.
How the Court resolved it
Justice Ramesh declined to discuss the merits of the allegations at all. The operative considerations were structural: bail had earlier been granted, so the threshold assessment had already been made once; the NBW was executed promptly; the chargesheet had long been filed; and the petitioner had already served a period of incarceration after rearrest. Against the real risk of flight, the Court deployed conditions rather than continued custody.
Why the order matters beyond its facts
Successive bail applications require a change in circumstances, and this order illustrates the cleanest form of one: a prosecution that stops examining witnesses while the accused is in custody. The judgment also shows the modern judicial toolkit for flight risk. Twenty years ago, an executed NBW would likely have ended the bail inquiry. Today, courts increasingly treat custody as the last resort even for a defaulter — provided conditions can realistically secure attendance. Daily reporting at the trial court is about as stringent as conditions come, and it has a self-enforcing elegance: the accused must be physically present at the very forum whose proceedings he once avoided.
A Delhi practice footnote
The same architecture is available in Delhi: Section 483 BNSS bail before the Sessions Court or High Court, conditions under Section 480(3), and trial-expedition directions where custody and stagnation coexist. An applicant with a default history should come prepared to propose strict conditions in terms — courts respond better to a concrete attendance plan than to assurances.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can bail be granted after the accused has absconded once?
Yes, but the history reshapes the conditions. Here the Court noted that the NBW was executed promptly, the chargesheet had long been filed, and the accused had already served a period of custody after rearrest — and it offset the flight risk with a daily-reporting condition before the trial court.
What made the third application succeed?
Changed circumstances. Ten prosecution witnesses had been examined between 2019 and 2025, but the trial had made no progress since 2024, leaving the accused in custody with no further witnesses being examined. Trial stagnation while the accused sits in jail is a classic circumstance justifying a fresh look.
What conditions were imposed?
A bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Court; sureties' photographs and thumb impressions on Judicial Form No. 46 with identity verification; daily appearance before the trial court at 10:30 a.m. until further orders; and the usual prohibitions on absconding and tampering, with the trial court empowered to act on breach as per P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
What happens to the trial now?
The High Court directed the Special Court to expedite and complete the trial within four months of receipt of the order. Bail-with-a-deadline keeps the prosecution to its proof while ending open-ended pre-judgment custody.