Article 66: Grounds for an arrest warrant
Statutory text (Thai original)
เหตุที่จะออกหมายจับได้มีดังต่อไปนี้
(๑)
เมื่อมีหลักฐานตามสมควรว่าบุคคลใดน่าจะได้กระทำความผิดอาญาซึ่งมีอัตราโทษจำคุกอย่างสูงเกินสามปี
หรือ
(๒)
เมื่อมีหลักฐานตามสมควรว่าบุคคลใดน่าจะได้กระทำความผิดอาญาและมีเหตุอันควรเชื่อว่าจะหลบหนี
หรือจะไปยุ่งเหยิงกับพยานหลักฐาน หรือก่อเหตุอันตรายประการอื่น
ถ้าบุคคลนั้นไม่มีที่อยู่เป็นหลักแหล่ง
หรือไม่มาตามหมายเรียกหรือตามนัดโดยไม่มีข้อแก้ตัวอันควร
ให้สันนิษฐานว่าบุคคลนั้นจะหลบหนี
English translation
The grounds on which an arrest warrant may be issued are as follows: (1) when there is reasonable evidence that a person probably committed a criminal offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding three years; or (2) when there is reasonable evidence that a person probably committed a criminal offence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that he will flee, or will interfere with the evidence, or will cause other danger. If that person has no settled dwelling, or fails to comply with a summons or an appointment without reasonable excuse, it shall be presumed that the person will flee.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This is the central provision defining when an arrest warrant may issue, and it sits at the head of the section of the Code on arrest warrants. It offers two independent gateways: a severity-based ground tied to offences punishable by more than three years imprisonment, and a risk-based ground resting on flight, interference with evidence, or other danger. The final sentence supplies a statutory presumption of flight where the person has no settled dwelling or ignores a summons or appointment without reasonable excuse. It operates together with Section 59/1, which requires reasonable evidence and a reasoned order before any warrant, and connects to Section 71 on detention and Section 78 on arrest without a warrant.
Why this matters in practice
This section defines the case the state must make to have you arrested, so it is the natural focus when challenging a warrant: was the offence one carrying over three years, or was there real evidence of flight risk, evidence tampering, or danger? The flight presumption is important for expats, since not having a settled address in Thailand or missing a summons can, without a reasonable excuse, be read as flight risk. To reduce that risk, respond to any summons and keep proof of a fixed address; if a warrant may be sought against you, get advice from a Thai lawyer early.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3803/2562 (2019)
Where there are reasonable grounds to believe a person will flee and the urgency means a warrant cannot first be obtained, a warrantless arrest falls within the exception in Section 78(3) read with Section 66(2) and is lawful.
The court found there were reasonable grounds to believe the plaintiffs would flee and that seeking a warrant first might mean losing them, so the situation was urgent. It held the warrantless arrest at the intersection fell within the exception under Section 78(3) combined with Section 66(2), making the arrest and the subsequent custody lawful.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4265/2561 (2018)
Where an offence is punishable by imprisonment within the range in Section 66, the court may issue a detention warrant against the suspect during investigation under Section 71 read with Section 66, this being a pre-charge step to keep the suspect within the court's power.
The suspect was accused under Penal Code Section 116, punishable by up to seven years. The court held that because a ground under Section 66 was present, it could issue a detention warrant during investigation under Section 71 read with Section 66; this pre-charge process aims to keep the accused within the court's power, while Section 106 preserves the right to apply for provisional release.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 479/2555 (2012)
A single judge's power to issue an arrest warrant depends on a ground under Section 66 being present, read together with the evidence and reasoned-order requirement in Section 59/1.
The court set out that under the Judicature Act a single judge may issue a criminal warrant, and that for an arrest warrant a ground under Section 66 must appear, either an offence punishable by more than three years or evidence plus reasonable grounds to believe the person will flee, with Section 59/1 requiring reasonable evidence before issuance.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 15 Supreme Court decisions (1953 to 2019)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 3803/2562 (2019)
- Décision 4265/2561 (2018)
- Decision 715/2556 (2013)
- Decision 11720/2555 (2012)
- Decision 479/2555 (2012)
- Decision 7884/2552 (2009)
- Decision 419/2550 (2007)
- Decision 466/2541 (1998)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
- Article 83 du Code pénal thaïlandais 6
- Article 91 du Code pénal thaïlandais 4
- Article 134 4
- Article 78 3
- Article 32 du Code pénal thaïlandais 3
- Article 33 du Code pénal thaïlandais 3
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Dans quelles circonstances un tribunal peut-il délivrer un mandat d'arrêt en Thaïlande ?
En vertu de l'article 66, soit lorsqu'il existe des preuves raisonnables qu'une personne a probablement commis une infraction passible d'une peine d'emprisonnement de plus de trois ans, soit lorsqu'il existe de telles preuves ainsi que des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elle fuira, entravera la preuve ou causera un autre danger.
L'absence de domicile fixe peut-elle entraîner un mandat d'arrêt ?
Cela peut y contribuer. L'article 66 présume la fuite lorsqu'une personne n'a pas de domicile fixe ou ignore une convocation ou un rendez-vous sans excuse raisonnable, ce qui soutient le motif fondé sur le risque.
Chaque infraction justifie-t-elle un mandat d'arrêt ?
Non. Le motif de gravité prévu à l’article 66(1) s’applique aux infractions passibles d’une peine de plus de trois ans ; les infractions moins graves nécessitent le motif fondé sur le risque prévu à l’article 66(2).
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 66 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Criminal Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 66. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-66/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.อ. มาตรา 66 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-66/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-66/"><p>The grounds on which an arrest warrant may be issued are as follows: (1) when there is reasonable evidence that a person probably committed a criminal offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding three years; or (2) when there is reasonable evidence that…</p><footer>Criminal Procedure Code, s. 66 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-66/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.