The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has held that where the material placed before the Court shows that the accusation against the petitioner is limited to retransmission/ publication of information already disseminated by other media outlets, and where the petitioner’s device has already been seized so that custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary, the Court may grant anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions.
Emphasising that constitutional courts are empowered to issue appropriate directions to the State Government for the welfare, rehabilitation, dignity, equality, and meaningful inclusion of transgender persons when continued inaction undermines constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21, the Court directed the State Government to formulate a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme for transgender persons at the Taluk level, ensuring avenues for self-employment and sustainable livelihood and to restore dignity and ensure meaningful inclusion of transgender persons in society along with necessary welfare schemes tailored to their specific needs.
The Court also ordered for release of Petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, within a period of fifteen days.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan recorded that the Investigating Officer produced the alleged offending material in a pen drive, and upon viewing it, the Court found that the allegation against the petitioner was confined to retransmission of the news relating to the self-immolation incident. The Bench also noted that, even as per the FIR, the accusation was that the petitioner had published or shared the information, and that similar news had already been disseminated by several other media outlets prior to the petitioner’s transmission. On that basis, the Bench was inclined to grant anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
The Bench further observed that the self-immolation incident shocked the judicial conscience and that members of the transgender community continue to face entrenched social stigma, deprivation of dignity, and lack of meaningful livelihood opportunities. The Bench also noted that the directions issued in NALSA in 2014 had not been effectively implemented in their true spirit, and therefore issued further directions to the State Government to formulate a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme for transgender persons at the Taluk level and required the Chief Secretary to coordinate implementation and file a compliance report.
Briefly, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with Crime registered by Srivilliputhur Town Police Station for an offence under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegation against him, a YouTuber, was that he had published/shared a video concerning the self-immolation of a transgender individual within a police station precinct and had projected that the police had collected details of transgender persons on complaints that they were extracting money from the public through coercive means. The petitioner contended that he had only retransmitted the content, that it did not originate from him, that he removed the video immediately upon learning of its contents, and that his mobile phone had already been seized, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.
Appearances:
Advocates Thayumanasundaram and K. Bhuvaneshwaran, for the Petitioner
Advocate P. Kottaichamy, for the Respondent
