Dmk vinoth suriya. Bail granted.advt saravanan argued. /Present: Thiru.S.Karthikeyan, M.A., M.L., M.Sc., P.G.D.C.F.Sc., P.G.D.D.F., Principal Sessions Judge. Wednesday, the 22nd day of July, 2026 Crl.M.P.No. 6765/2026 in CCB, Crime No. 82/2026 R.Vinoth Suriyakumar ..

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHENNAI
Present: Thiru.S.Karthikeyan, M.A., M.L., M.Sc., P.G.D.C.F.Sc., P.G.D.D.F., Principal Sessions Judge.
Wednesday, the 22nd day of July, 2026
Crl.M.P.No. 6765/2026 in
CCB, Crime No. 82/2026
R.Vinoth Suriyakumar .. Petitioner/Accused Vs.
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Social Media Investigation Wing,
Cyber Crime Cell,
Central Crime Branch Chennai,
132, EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai. ..Respondent/Complainant
This petition is coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of M/s.A.Saravanan, C.Arun Kumar, A.K. Vigasini, K.Karthiyayini, G.R.Pranav, 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 was arrested on 15.07.2026 for the offences punishableunder Sections 192, 353(1)(b), 353(2) of BNS in Crime No.82/2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a popularperson in media, publishing news, article and messages in Social Media in his Instagram ID “Political Mapla.” The petitioner has covered the sensitive news item which was spread across Tamilnadu with regard to the fraudulent sale of property belongs to Palani Murugan Temple. There is no evidence against the petitioner to justify his remand as there is no sufficient evidence against him and his actions do not constitute the alleged offences that he is charged under. The petitioner has no deliberate intention to misinform the public or cause any disrepute. Merely he utilized his constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression, on the information he believed was true. The petitioner has used his democratic freedom and has only questioned the social issues from his true perspective and that does not amount to offences as made out by the respondent police. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The respondent police have failed in their duty to follow due process of law in the arrest of the petitioner. He has not served with official summons u/s. 35(3) of BNSS. No previous bad antecedent. Hence, prays for granting bail.
3. On the other hand, the learned CPP submitted that the petitioner through hisInstragram ID has created a false information and posts which contains misleading allegations intended to tarnish the reputation and public image of the Hon’ble Minister, mislead the public promote distrust against the Government and thereby disturb public tranquility and harmony. He has posted false, defamatory and derogatory content against the Hon’ble Minister with intention to disturbing public peace and order. Considering his active involvement in digital media platforms and the conduct of the petitioner, custody is necessary to ensure and proper investigation. Investigation is pending. If he is released on bail, he may abscond and indulge in similar kind of offence. Hence, he strongly opposed the petition.
4. This court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submission putforth by either side. On careful perusal of records, it is found that the allegations against the petitioner is that, the petitioner has published the post in his Instagram account with user name “political mapla” with deliberate and malicious intent, posted false, defamatory and derogatory content against Hon’ble Tr. S.Ramesh, Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Government of Tamilnadu. The alleged posts are as follows:-
“நாம் முருகனுக்கு மமாட்டைட ப ாடுப ாம்… ஆனால் இந்த ஆட்சியில் முருகனுக்பக மமாட்டைட ப ாட்டிருக்காங்க!”
“₹100 பகாடி மதி ்புள்ள ழனியாண்ட ர் பகா ில் நிலம், ம றும் ₹2 பகாடிக்கு அடைமசச்ர் உற ினருக்கு த்திர ் திவு மசய்ய் டதாக ம ளியாகும் தக ல்கள் ம ரும் அதிர்ச்சிடைய ஏற் டுத்தியுள்ளது….இது பகா ில் மசாத்துக்கடைள ாதுகாக்கும் ஆட்சியா? அல்லது பகா ில் மசாத்துக்கடைள றிக்கும் ஆட்சியா?… பகா ில் மசாத்துக்கள் மக்கள் மசாத்து.”
“மதி ்பு ரூ.100 பகாடி… ிற்றது ம றும் ரூ.2 பகாடி..! பகா ில் நிலதத்ிற்பக ஸ் ாஹா..!
பகடட்ா நிர் ாகத்திற்பக மதரியாதாம்.”
5. From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found that theproperty belongs to one Dhandayuthabani Mutt attached to Arulmigu Palaniandavar Temple, at Palani was sold at lesser rate than the prevailing market rate. And case was registered in this connection and is now under investigation by the CBCID. The News became sensational as it allegedly involves a large scale fraud. Various news items were published in the media as well as social media. As stated supra, the petitioner has also posted the above posts in his Instragram ID ‘Political Mapla’.
6. The press is considered to be 4th pillar of the Democracy. The freedom of press flows from the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. It is true that Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). However, the present case does not fall in any of the restrictions stipulated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India i.e against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or against the security of the State or against the friendly relations with Foreign States or the public order or the decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The offences booked in the FIR are Sec. 192, 353(1)(b), 353(2) of BNS. The said offences are extracted below for better understanding.
Sec. 192 of BNS
Whoever malignantly, or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Sec. 353(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means,
(a)…..
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or
“Section 353(2) BNS: Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
On careful reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the allegations referred in the FIR does not attract any of the offences charged above.
7. In the Democracy, the voice of dissent is to be respected, merely criticizing thegovernment or its ministers does not amount to an offence committed against the state or public tranquility. The statement that the property belongs to the Temple was sold at a marginal rate or the alleged involvement of relative of the minister cannot said to cause or likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. Making alleged defamatory or derogatory statements or publishing false information would at the best attract only an offence punishable under Section 356 of BNS and the same is not a cognizable offence.
8. The fact remains that the land belongs to Arulmigu Dhandayuthabani Mutt was sold tosome third party lower than the market rate and in this regard an investigation of the alleged fraud is going on. Covering the said news and posting it in instagram in his won style i.e .Muruganuku Mottai poduvom… intha atchiyil Muruganuke Mottai potrukanga…’, does not attract any of the offences extracted above.
9. The learned CPP has objected to the bail on the ground that the respondent police hasfiled custody petition and the same is posted tomorrow for appearance of the Accused before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. The social media post said to have posted by the petitioner herein is already in public domain. It cannot be deleted or tampered with. The investigation agency can very well extract the same and produce before the court to prove the said post in the manner known to law. Since nothing remains to be extracted within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner herein, this court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation is not necessary in this matter. Merely custody petition is pending before the Jurisdictional Magistrate is not a ground for rejecting the bail. The investigation agency has not satisfactorily explained as to why custodial interrogation is necessary in this matter. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for asum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and on further condition that:-
(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb impression in the suretybond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity.
(b) the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. untilfurther orders.
(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/Trial Courtis entitled to take appropriate action against the above said petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the above said petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble 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 under Section269 of BNS.
Dictated to Steno-typist, typed by him directly, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of July, 2026.
Principal Sessions Judge Copy to :
1. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
GB