Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Hindu Munnani Functionaries Accused of Hate Speech | Bail Subject to Conditions Including Writing Preamble and Fundamental Duties Ten Times
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madras, Single Bench of Justice M. Jothiraman, granted anticipatory bail to three petitioners who were facing charges under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court directed that they be released in the event of arrest or upon appearance before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within fifteen days, subject to compliance with strict conditions. The conditions included the execution of bonds with sureties, regular appearances before the police, and a directive to write out specific constitutional provisions multiple times and submit them to the trial court. The order was passed after considering the submissions of both sides, the pendency of cases against the accused, and the fact that the protest in question had been conducted with prior permission. The Court stated that any breach of the conditions would empower the trial court to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The matter arose from Crime No.601 of 2024, registered on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District. The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations against them pertained to offences punishable under Sections 192, 196(1)(a), 197(1)(c), 352, 353(1)(c), and 353(2) of the BNS, 2023.
According to the prosecution, on 27 August 2024, at about 3:30 p.m., near Nagamma temple situated at Villapuram Housing Board, members of the Hindu Munnani conducted a protest against attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh. During the course of the protest, it was alleged that the petitioners delivered hateful speeches which incited riots among the general public. This led to the registration of the complaint.
The petitioners contended, through their counsel, that they were active members of the Hindu Munnani party, regularly organizing protests and activities linked to temple development and related issues. It was further submitted that the third accused had originally sought permission to hold the protest. Though the police initially refused permission, the third accused filed W.P.(MD) No.19672 of 2024 before the High Court. By order dated 16 August 2024, the writ petition was disposed of with directions permitting the protest subject to conditions. The petitioners maintained that they were falsely implicated, bore no adverse antecedents personally, and undertook not to tamper with evidence or evade legal proceedings. They expressed readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused had indeed made inflammatory statements capable of inciting public disorder. It was also stated that multiple prior cases were pending against the petitioners: five against the first accused, three against the second, and twelve against the third accused. The prosecution, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Upon hearing the parties, the Court noted that the protest was conducted pursuant to permission granted following the writ proceedings. The Court took note of the recording of the speeches, which formed part of the FIR. Despite the pendency of other cases, the Court considered the overall circumstances and decided to extend anticipatory bail, albeit with stringent conditions.
The Court, after perusal of the materials, recorded as follows: “A perusal of the records shows that on 27.8.2024 at about 3.30p.m. near Nagamma temple situated at Villapuram Housing Board, the Hindu Munnani party had conducted a protest under leadership of petitioner/third accused. The purpose of the protest was against the attack on the Hindus in Bangladesh.”
It further stated: “It seen from the records that the petitioner/third accused had filed W.P.(MD). No.19672 of 2024 seeking a relief to direct the third respondent therein to give permission to conduct Dharna protest in the fourth week of August, 2024 at about 05.00p.m. to 07.00pm and to give protection for the same. This Court vide order dated 16.08.2024 in W.P.(MD). No.19672 of 2024 had observed as follows…” Thereafter, the Court reproduced in full the earlier order, which allowed the writ petition with directions to permit the protest at a suitable venue and time.
The Court noted that despite the FIR being registered only on 2 September 2024, the protest had been conducted lawfully after permission was granted. The Court observed: “According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the entire speech delivered by the petitioners/accused, at the time of protest has been recorded and the same has been reflected in the First Information Report. The petitioners/Accused have already obtained prior permission to conduct the said protest.”
Considering these circumstances, the Court observed that the case warranted grant of anticipatory bail but with safeguards. The Court therefore was “inclined to grant an order of anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.”
The Court directed that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or upon their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate VI, Madurai, within fifteen days from the preparation of the order copy. Each petitioner was directed to execute a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the police or the concerned Magistrate.
The Court mandated that the petitioners and sureties affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impressions in the surety bond. Copies of Aadhaar cards or Bank Pass Books were also to be obtained to verify their identities.
The Court issued a unique condition directing the petitioners to write, ten times in a notebook, the Preamble of the Constitution of India, Article 19, and Part IV-A - Article 51-A on Fundamental Duties. This written exercise, in either English or Tamil, was to be submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Further, the petitioners were directed to report before the respondent police every Monday and Friday at 10:30 a.m. until further orders. They were also prohibited from tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding during the investigation or trial.
The Court recorded that on breach of any of the conditions, the Magistrate or trial court would be entitled to take action against the petitioners in accordance with law, as if the conditions were imposed by the Magistrate himself. Reference was made to the decision in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].
The Court further stated: “If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS 2023.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Raja Mathan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District
Case Number: CRL OP(MD) No.5874 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. Jothiraman
