The Madras High Court has granted bail to temple protection activist Rangarajan Narasimhan in two FIRs, one in relation to a telephone conversation with a seer he secretly recorded about a puja that was allegedly held at the residence of Tamil Nadu Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin and the other on the complaint of a woman against whom he had allegedly used derogatory words in response to her social media post in relation to the same issue.

Seven FIRs have been registered against the activist in different parts of Tamil Nadu between December 15 and 25. In one, FIR, the Magistrate refused to remand him to Police custody.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed two Petitions by Narasimhan seeking to be enlarged on bail in two cases.

In the case for alleged surreptitious recording of the phone call between seer Embaar Jeeyar and himself, the Court said, "All the materials, on the basis of which the video had been shot and uploaded, have already been seized by the police. The material objects are in their custody...Hence, there is nothing which necessitates custodial interrogation of the Petitioner. In the light of the above discussion, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions".

In the second case, which was heard on merits, based on a woman's complaint who said Narasimhan used certain derogatory words on social media, the Court said, "For the purpose of this order, I have to state that a reading of the complaint does not attract the provisions of Section 75 of BNS or Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Furthermore, as the other offences are bailable, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions."

Advocate T.S. Vijayaraghavan appeared for the Petitioner and Government Advocate K.M.D. Mugilan appeared for the Respondent-State.

First case

In the first case, seer Embaar Jeeyar had alleged that Narasimhan had surreptitiously recorded and later uploaded on YouTube a telephone conversation between the two about a puja that was allegedly held at the resident of Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin. Stalin is not named in Court's Order and has only been referred to as a "renowned personality".

Repeating the adage 'my right stops where the other person's nose begins', the Court observed, "The petitioner, who claims he is upholding constitutional values, should not have interfered with the right of another person which amounts to breach of right to privacy, which is yet again a constitutional right."

Narasimhan was booked under Sections 192 (Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 352 (Insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 353 (1)(b), 353 (2) (Statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2023 read with Section 65 (Tampering with computer source documents) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He was remanded to Judicial Custody and his bail application was dismissed on December 20 by the Trial Court.

The seer claimed he feared for his life and liberty and that Narasimhan's actions amounted to creating divisions in the society and had the tendency to cause riots among the followers of Stalin and the mutt.

Vijaraghavan, appearing for Narasimhan, submitted that he had spoken to the seer beseeching him to uphold the tenets of Srivaishnavism, additionally pointing out that no complaint had been given from any one of the family members of the "renowned personality."

He further pointed out that when the police had attempted to take police custody, the Magistrate had refused to grant police custody and dismissed the petition. "The request for police custody had been rejected by the learned Magistrate, which shows the Magistrate came to the conclusion that custodial interrogation is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Yet, he proceeded to dismiss the bail application." the Court said.

The counsel for the State claimed that it is a habit of the Petitioner to "disparage every respectable person and attempt to create divisions in the society," as the Court notes his submission.

Noting that whatever evidence is required by the police to investigate the case is with them already, the Court enlarged him on bail on the condition that "the petitioner shall 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, on the basis of this video either directly or indirectly or though social media regarding the case." besides other generally imposed conditions.

Second case

The second case is based on a complaint filed by a woman stating that she had she tweeted her reply to Narasimhan lamenting that he had spent a lot of time and money appearing before the Supreme Court and as the matter was not listed, it was a wasted trip. "In response to the same, the petitioner used some derogatory words. Feeling aggrieved over the response given to her tweet, the complainant lodged the said complaint with the respondent police." the High Court notes in its Order.

In this case, Narasimhan was booked under Sections Sections 75 (Sexual harassment) and 79 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman) of the BNS and Section 4 (Penalty for harassment of women) of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002 and Section 67 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Narasimhan argued that the response given by him on social media does not attract any of the provisions he was booked under and that his statement is a transliteration of the regular usage in Tamil.

Noting that Section 75 of the BNS or Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act is not made out, the Court enlarged Narasimhan on bail. The Court imposed the condition that "the Petitioner shall refrain from making any vituperative comments against women in any of the forums of social media that he adopts." and that "immediately on being released from custody, the petitioner shall delete all the offensive messages" among other generally imposed conditions.

Other cases

Narasimhan told the Court that a separate First Information Report was also filed against him and two others alleging the commission of offences under Section 192, 352, 353 (1)(b), 353 (1) (c), 353 (2) of the BNS. Interim protection was secured by the accused in the High Court.

Apart from this, the Court was told, the police had flogged an old complaint from December 2021 registered under Sections 294(b), 341, 153, 290, 298 and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Narasimhan was shown as formally arrested in this case on December 18 this year. In another case, he was shown as arrested on December 21 this year and remanded to judicial custody.

"This apart the petitioner has been taken to Tuticorin yesterday (23-12-2024) for arrest in a complaint given by the Azhwar Thirunagiri Jeeyar and is excepted to have been remanded to judicial custody by the time this petition is heard. It is also not known whether any formal arrest was shown inside the Prison." he said in his his bail petition.

"Thus it is very clear that the respondent police with malice and illegality wants to slap cases one after the other to keep the petitioner in continued incarcination thereby portray him as a Goonda without following any procedure of law and the guidelines of this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court." Narasimhan claimed before the Court.

Arrest without warrant

Narasimhan said that in both cases provisions of Section 35 (When police may arrest without warrant) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were not followed.

Perusing the records of the police in the first case, the Court noted that the notice under Section 35 was issued on December 15, requiring him to appear before the police the next day and that the Petitioner had refused to receive it.

"However, that does not mean the petitioner would not appear before the Investigating Officer on the date on which he has been summoned. The date on which the petitioner was called upon to appear was on 16.12.2024. The police could have waited for 24 more hours and thereafter proceeded to arrest him in case he had not presented himself." the Court observed.

Stating further, it said, "The fact that Section 35(3) notice was issued shows that the Investigating Officer did not want to arrest the accused on 15.12.2024. However, they proceeded to arrest him on that date, since the accused refused to receive the notice."

Cause Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. State of Tamil Nadu [Crl.O.P. 32420 of 2024 and Crl.O.P. 32423 of 2024]

Click here to read/download the Orders.


Justice V. LakshminarayananMadras High Court

Tushar Kohli