The way I read it is that they have a right to enter a home of the bail jumper or where he resides that is not to say they have a right to enter any home.
On the issue of conducting a no knock type entry to arrest a bail jumper the bail bondsman will be responsible "if any evil ensue, they must bear the burden of the consequences, and cannot cast them upon the obligee.."
If you are of clean hands other words not involved or some how wrapped up this the bail jumper activities or where he resides, I would consider treating it as a home invasion.
Even though the bail bondsman have taken steps to avoid such errors it still lays in their hands if any harms comes of it and does not take away a citizens right to self defense.
When bail is given, the principal is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties.
Their dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done.
They may exercise their rights in person or by agent.
They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose.
The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner.
In 6 Modern it is said: "The bail have their principal on a string, and may pull the string whenever they please, and render him in their discharge."
The rights of the bail in civil and criminal cases are the same.
They may doubtless permit him to go beyond the limits of the State within which he is to answer, but it is unwise and imprudent to do so; and if any evil ensue, they must bear the burden of the consequences, and cannot cast them upon the obligee.