In a criminal petition filed before the Madras High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking bail in a crime registered for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 296(b), 125, 132, 109(1), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri granted bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
The petitioner was a journalist, political satirist, and blogger who had a digital media platform under the name and style of ‘Savukku’. His previous bail petition, filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, was dismissed on 24-04-2026.
The petitioner, arrested on 08-04-2026, was being brought to the police station when the vehicle stopped, and the petitioner was allegedly taken aside by the Inspector. The complainant, Sub-Inspector of Police, remained near the vehicle. It was alleged that the accused persons came in another car, picked a quarrel with the complainant, pelted stones at him and threatened the police personnel. It was also alleged that the petitioner joined the accused persons to throw stones and caused panic among the public.
The petitioner asserted that he was in the police’s custody and physical control when the alleged incident occurred; hence, the allegation that he pelted stones while in police custody was improbable. It was submitted that the petitioner was illegally secured at Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, on 08-04-2026 at about 6 AM, and was brought to Chennai by the police, after which the present case was foisted against him.
The petitioner mentioned that there was a contradiction in two cases, as in one case, the prosecution stated that the petitioner escaped in an Innova Crysta from Chittoor Road and that the hotel manager accompanied the police team in a separate vehicle for nearly 250 kms to identify the car, which led to the petitioner’s apprehension. However, it was said that in the present case, the hotel manager was shown to be travelling in an Innova Crysta, and it was alleged that he also participated in the stone pelting.
The Court noted that the petitioner was arrested on 08-04-2026 and remanded to judicial custody on 09-04-2026, being in incarceration since then. The Court also noted the contradictions and inconsistencies between the two cases, but said that whether such a contradiction would ultimately demolish the prosecution’s case was a matter for investigation and trial.
It was said that a preventive detention order may have its own life and validity, subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings, but the mere existence of such a detention order could not denude the Court of its jurisdiction to consider a bail petition. The Court stated that the entitlement to bail in a criminal case must be examined independently.
The Court considered the petitioner’s period of incarceration, allegations against him, and the fact that he was already in police custody at the time of the alleged occurrence and said that where the presence of the accused can be secured by conditions and the prosecution’s apprehension can be neutralised by safeguards, continued incarceration would be unjustified.
Hence, the petition was allowed subject to a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount, along with certain other conditions, including refraining from tampering with evidence and cooperating with the investigation.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Arun Anbumani, Mr. P. Rajkumar
For Respondents – Mr. A. Damodharan (APP)
