Athenam ab order Thiru.S.Karthikeyan, M.A., M.L., M.Sc., PGDCFSc., Principal Sessions Judge.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI

Present: Thiru.S.Karthikeyan, M.A., M.L., M.Sc., PGDCFSc., Principal Sessions Judge.

Thursday, the 17th day of July, 2025.

Crl.M.P.No.6273/2025 in

CCB-1 Crime No.22/2025

Shri.Harihara Gnasambandha Desiga

Paramachariyar Swamigal,

Madurai Adhenam,

Therkavani Moolaveedhi,

Madurai-625001.           .. Petitioner/Accused

Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Central Crime Branch-1 (Cyber Branch), East Zone,

Chennai-600007.                                  ..Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of M/s.Ramaswamy Meyyapan and Viyyash Kumar.G.V., the Counsel for the petitioner and of the CPP for respondent police and upon hearing both sides, this Court delivered the following,

ORDER

1.               The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police,has come up with the present application seeking for anticipatory bail.

2.               The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in Crime No.22 of 2025, registered by the 1^st Respondent for alleged offences under Section 192, 196 (1)(a), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNS. The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police. The petitioner is 293^rd Madathipathy of Madurai Aadheenam and he holds a high position of respect and honor in the Hindu religion. The petitioner has dedicated his life for the service and wellbeing of people and promoting harmony and discipline amongst different groups. When the petitioner was proceeding to attend the 6^th International Saiva Siddhanta Conference, organised by Dharmapuram Adheenam at SRM University, Kattankulathur in the first week of May 2025, on 02.05.2025, A Toyota Fortuner car in which the petitioner was travelling was hit by another car near Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi. On preliminary inspection by the driver of the car, the other car which caused the accident had speeded past the barriers kept in the road and entered into the highway unchecked and without stipulating to the traffic norms of stop signs or intersection passes to cause the accident, and further the car did not bear any number plates. At Indian intersections, vehicles approaching from the right generally have the right-of-way and further the petitioner’s car coming through the arterial highway.  The alleged accident causes serious suspicions in the mind of the people in the car and immediately for the safety of the petitioner, the car reached Kanchipuram to take rest.

3.               The petitioner was under an impression of imminent and grave threat to hislife owing to his stature and position within the community. Thereafter, the proceeded to Chennai to attend the conference. People in the car of the petitioner, including the driver and the petitioner had seen two individuals with long beards and a cap traditionally worn by people following the religion of Islam inside the car that had violated the traffic rules and caused the accident. The incident had left the petitioner in shock and fear of death or grave injury due to the fact that the car had no number plate. On 03.05.2025, when the petitioner was enquired about the accident by the media in a press conference, statements were made by the petitioner that there was an imminent threat to his life allegedly caused by two individuals following the faith of Islam. The petitioner had merely narrated the happenings and nowhere in the statement made any remarks regarding any religion but merely narrated a near death experience when constantly questioned by the media.  The petitioner never intended to cause any provocation to any person to commit any riot or cause public disturbance. The utterance made by the petitioner did not cause any violence nor caused any disharmony among the public. The press meeting at another public event which was sensationalised by the media people and should not be the basis to file a vexatious case against the petitioner. Though the incident was said to have taken place on 03.05.2025, the FIR was only made on 24.06.2025. In the meantime, there was no reported instigation, disharmony or any other crime committed on the pretext of the speech given by the petitioner.

4.               On an Independent case, the driver of the car has co-operated with theauthorities and given statements in furtherance of Investigation. The intention to call the petitioner to the police station is an attempt to insult the petitioner and the same is clear from the repeated communications between the authorities and the petitioner. The nature of the language used and threats seems apparent of an arrest without any evidence to make a prima facie case against the the petitioner. This is merely an attempt to harass and embarrass the Individual and his religious sect.  The petitioner has no flight risk as he is the chief pontiff of the Adheenam and he agreed to cooperate for the investigation. The case was filed merely as an act of publicity and it should not to be entertained. There is no credible evidence to support the claims made in the First Information Report. The petitioner is ready to comply with any conditions subject to the immunity granted to him as the pontiff of the Madurai Adheenam in the investigation process. The petitioner shall not act in any manner detrimental to the investigation process and undertakes to strictly comply with such conditions as imposed by this Court. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigative agencies by participating through Virtual Conference medium or platform or application as determined by the authorities. If need be shall provide such sureties to demonstrate his bonafides and request that there not be a request or direction for personal appearance or presence given the nature of his practice and rituals and social requirements.  Therefore, he prays for anticipatory bail.

5.               Per contra, the learned City Public Prosecutor contended that on 17.06.2025 a complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant to the Commissioner of Police. The defacto complainant is a practicing lawyer and follows the beliefs of the two major sects of Hinduism, namely Saivaism and Vaishnavism. Recently, the Sixth International Saiva Siddhanta Conference was organized by Dharmapura Aadeenam at SRM University, Kattankulathur near Chennai, for a few days in the first week of May 2025, in which the Aadeenkartha of Madurai Aadeenam, the oldest among the

Saiva Aadeenams, had come to participate in the conference. Sri Harihara

Gnanasambandha Desika Paramachariyar 293^rd Madathipathi Madurai Aadeenam was travelling from Madurai to Chennai in a Toyota Fortuner car belonging to Madurai Aadeenam on 02.05.2025 at around 9.40 am when another car hit his car near the Ajis

Nagar approach road in Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi district. While speaking at the Saiva Siddhanta Conference held on 03.05.2025, the Madathipathi said, “A conspiracy was hatched to kill him. Pakistan may have been involved in this and he have been saved by the blessings of Dharumai Aadeenam. Meenakshi Sundareswarar has saved him and he cannot speak of a good thing anywhere now.

6.               Subsequently, in a press conference that he remarked that the people whocaused the accident were wearing a kulla, had a beard and the car did not have a number plate. They chased him for a long distance and broke the barricade and came to the car. He further said added that he had been hit by a group of people and that if they had been honest, they would have filed a complaint at the police station, but that they had hit him and fled, and that an attempt was made to kill him by using religious symbols.

7.               The learned CPP has submitted that there is no iota of truth in the saidstatement. The petitioner with an intention to seek publicity, had averred in the conference and subsequently in the press meet as if there was a conspiracy hatched by the group belongs to Islamic Religion to kill him. By that way, he expressed his hatred against the people, who followed Islam and attempted to bring communal clash between Hindus and Muslims. In this connection, the defacto complainant has filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and an FIR in Crime No.12/COP/SM2/2025, dated 23.06.2025 was registered for the offences punishable u/s  192, 196(1)(a), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNS on 23.06.2025 at 16.00 hours by East Zone Cyber Crime Investigation and the same is under investigation.

8.               During investigation, it is found that the alleged car accident was happenedat Ulundurpet Junction in Kallakurichi District. The investigation reveals that on the complaint of the driver of the car one Mubarak Ali, a case was registered by the Ulundurpet P.S. in Cr.No.263/2025 for the offences punishable u/s 281 and 125 of BNS, dated 04.05.2025 at 15.00 hours. Since the rumours were spread, the police have collected CCTV footage at the SOC, which reveals the accident and the subsequent reaction of travellers in both the cars. The learned CPP has produced the pendrive containing the said CCTV footage for perusal of this court.

9.               The learned CPP further submitted that the CCTV footage makes it veryclear that it is the Madurai Aadheenam’s car which was speeding on the TrichyChennai highway, hit and damaged the number plate of the opponent car which came from Kallakuruchi towards Chennai bypass Road. Further, the petitioner herein has given a press meet on 03.05.2025 to News18 Channel, which was posted in social media, i.e., Youtube, wherein he has made certain derogatory statements against a particular section of community. Therefore, the intention of the petitioner is very clear to spread communal disharmony and thereby creating social unrest. The learned CPP further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 67 years, but, he has not behaved in a matured way. The irresponsible statement made by the petitioner herein created so much impact on the society and there were number of demonstration and protest, which created law and order issues.

10.           The learned CPP further submitted that on 29.06.2025, at 14.00 hours, anotice U/s 35(3) BN55 was sent to the petitioner for his appearance on 30.06.2025 at 11.00 Hrs. However, he has failed to appear.  Further, a representation was emanated from the office of the Madurai Aatheenam requesting 20 days time for appearance. Therefore, second notice u/s 35(3) BNSS was issued for his appearance on 05.07.2025 at 11.00 Hrs., which was received on 01.07.2025. On 04.07.2025, another mail emanated from the office of the Madurai Aadheenam expressing their readiness to co-operate for investigation through video conference. On 05.07.2025, the petitioner did not appear, but, his representative one Selvakumar appeared in person and submitted an explanatory letter requesting one week’s time to appear for the investigation. At this juncture, the petitioner has come up with the present application.

11.           The learned CPP further submitted that since the petitioner has made certain derogatory remarks, which incited violance and by the conduct of the petitioner, he discloses that he would not subject himself for the process of the investigation, therefore custodial interrogation is very much necessary.  Therefore, the learned CPP prays for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.  The learned CPP has brought to the notice of this court about the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of a Cartoonist Wazahat Khan to say that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right but is increasingly being abused.  The learned CPP has submitted that the present case is also similar nature to the one where the Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed is discontent and dissatisfaction. Therefore, he strongly objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.

12.           This court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissionsput forth by either side at length. The petitioner is the chief pontiff of Madurai Aatheenam and he is the 293^rd Madathipathy of Madurai Aatheenam. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 02.05.25 when the petitioner was proceeding to attend the VI International Saiva Siddhantha Conference, an accident was took place at Ulundurpet Junction, where one car hit against the Fortuner Car in which the petitioner travelled. The next day, the petitioner herein has participated in VI Saiva Siddhanta Conference, organised by Dharmapuram Adheenam at SRM University, Kattankulathur, where the petitioner herein has made certain remarks about the said accident as if a conspiracy was hatched to kill him, Pakisthan may have involved in the said conspiracy and he was saved by the blessings of Dharumai Aadeenam and Meenakshi Sundareswarar. Apart from that, the petitioner herein has given an interview to a private channel, which was posted in social media platform, wherein the petitioner herein has remarked that two people, who caused the accident were wearing a cap (kulla), had a beard and the car did not have a number plate. He further remarked that they chased him for a long distance and broke the barricade and came to the car. He further added that he had been hit by a group of people and that if they had been honest, they would have filed a complaint at the police station, but that they had hit him and fled away, and that an attempt was made by certain Islamic fanatics to kill him.

13.           In this connection, the Investigation Agency has submitted a pendrivecontaining the CCTV footage in which the road accident was recorded. The said CCTV Footage was gone into by this Court and it discloses the actual happenings at the time of accident. It is also brought to the notice of this court that immediately after the interview was hosted in the private channel in the Youtube, certain demonstrations were made at the either side. Therefore, the CCTV Footage was widely published and circulated to give a clear picture about the incident. No doubt, from the CCTV footage, it is found that the petitioner herein has made certain exaggerated version in respect of the incident that was took place on that day. This court does not want to express any opinion about the CCTV footage and the version projected by the petitioner herein in the conference as it is pending subjudice before the jurisdictional court.

14.           Further, the pendrive circulated by the Investigating Agency also containsthe interview given by the petitioner herein to a private channel.  On careful hearing of the interview, it is found that the driver of the petitioner and the petitioner had given certain answers to the questions posed by the media persons. It is sorry to record here that it is the media person, who is repeatedly put several questions and obtained certain answers from the petitioner, which later became controversial. The questions are leading and putting words into the mouth of the petitioner. The petitioner, though exaggerated the incident, does not prima facie show any intention to spread communal hatred.

15.           The main contention of the learned CPP is that the petitioner herein hascreated a communal hatred between the Hindu and Islamic sect. However, the complaint was not given by any members of the Islamic Religion saying that their religious sentiments were hurted by the petitioner herein. On careful perusal of the First Information Report registered by the respondent police, it is found that one Mr.R.Rajendiran, a practicing advocate in the courts at Chennai and Madurai has given the complaint. Though the respondent police has registered an FIR for the offences punishable u/s 192, 196(1)(a), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNS, whether the petitioner has necessary intention to attract the offences alleged therein need to be proved only during the trial.

16.           The Fortuner car in which the petitioner was travelled was driven only bythe driver of the petitioner and even in the interview taken by the private news channel, the driver who has accompanied the petitioner has asserted that the vehicle, which was hit against their car,  has no number plate.  Further, he has the one, who asserted that in the other car, there were peoples belonging to Islamic Religion, which was subsequently affirmed by the petitioner herein.

17.           The fact remains that the petitioner is a Chief Pontiff of MaduraiAatheenam, which dedicated to the cause of Saiva Sithantha, a sect in Hindu Religion. The position of the petitioner is holding in high by his followers. Considering the fact that the petitioner is aged about 67 years and considering the position held by him, this court is of the considered view that there is no flight risk. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the submissions of the learned CPP, it is found that notice u/s 35(3) of BNSS was issued to the petitioner for investigation twice. The petitioner has responded to the said notices through emails and ready to co-operate for investigation through video conference.

18.           Though the learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that there is aconvention followed in the Madras Presidency that an Aatheenam, who falls under the category of individuals, who according to the customs and manners of the country, should not be compelled to appear in public and they may be exempted from personal appearance in court and the said convention is followed from time immemorial, which got a recognition in Madras Presidency Provision Order, 2240, dated 15.09.1880, Sec.179 and 180 of the BNSS does not provide any such exemption for the Accused from personal appearance. However, proviso to Section 179 of BNSS, makes it clear that no male person above the age of sixty years shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such person resides. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, with certain conditions.

19.           Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order, before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)  with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that

[a]            the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumbimpression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass book to ensure their identity.

[b]            the petitioner shall co-operate for investigation and subject himself forinterrogation as and when required. However, it is made clear that as per proviso to Section 179 of BNSS, the petitioner being the one above the age of sixty years shall not be required to attend at any place other than the place in which he ordinarily resides.

[c]            the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial.

[d]            the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e]            On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/TrialCourt is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].

[f]             If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 269 of BNS.

Dictated to Steno-typist, typed by him directly, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 17^th day of July, 2025.

   Principal Sessions Judge Copies to:

1.               The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

2.               CPP, Chennai.

3.               The Sub-Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-1,      Cyber Branch, East Zone, Chennai-600007. ss

Crl.M.P.No.6273/2025