{"id":338134,"date":"2024-12-30T09:00:35","date_gmt":"2024-12-30T03:30:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=338134"},"modified":"2024-12-30T09:17:24","modified_gmt":"2024-12-30T03:47:24","slug":"madras-hc-grants-bail-rangarajan-narasimhan-video-deputy-cm-udhayanidhi-stalin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/30\/madras-hc-grants-bail-rangarajan-narasimhan-video-deputy-cm-udhayanidhi-stalin\/","title":{"rendered":"Read why Madras HC granted bail to temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan in two FIRs relating to video against Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> In a criminal original petition filed by temple protection activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, seeking interim bail in two FIRs, the Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan granted bail to him in both the cases.<\/p>\n

The first FIR was related to a secretly recorded telephone conversation between Rangarajan Narasimhan and Sriperumbudur Embaar Jeeyar, in relation to a puja that was allegedly held at the residence of Tamil Nadu Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin, wherein it was alleged that after having surreptitiously recording the conversation, Rangarajan Narasimhan had edited the conversation and uploaded the same on his You Tube Channel ‘Our Temples – Rangarajan Narasimhan’. He was accused of the offences under Sections 192<\/a>, 352<\/a>, 353(1)(b)<\/a> and 353(2)<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023<\/a> and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act. This complaint was registered on 15-12-2024. On the very same day, he was arrested by the police at his residence.<\/p>\n

The second FIR was based on a complaint from a woman who alleged that Rangarajan Narasimhan had used derogatory words in her response to his social media post regarding the same issue. The police registered a case under Sections 75<\/a> and 79<\/a> of the BNS, 2023<\/a>, Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and Section 67<\/a> of the Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The accused urged that as to the maintainability of bail, in Section 483 of BNS the jurisdiction of the High Court as well as that of the Court of Sessions are concurrent. He also argued that the response given by him did not attract the any of the above-mentioned Sections, as the statement was a transliteration of the regular usage in Tamil. He also pointed out that Section 79 is a bailable offence whereas Section 75 is not.<\/p>\n

The Court did not find anything in the complaint that could attract Section 75 of BNS or Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Pointing out that the other offences were bailable, the Court granted bail to the accused.<\/p>\n

In the first case, the Court noted that all the materials related to the video that was shot and uploaded had already been seized by the police, and the material objects were in their custody. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no necessity for the custodial interrogation of the accused. Considering these facts, the Court expressed its inclination to grant bail to him, subject to certain conditions, particularly to not get in touch with any of the three Matadhipathis or the renowned personality himself or any person belonging to the family of the renowned personality, based on this video either directly or indirectly or though social media regarding the case.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court ordered the accused to be released on bail on his executing separate bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000\/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, and on various other conditions to be fulfilled.<\/p>\n

The Court imposed the following additional conditions on the accused in both the cases:<\/p>\n