A Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan heard two petitions filed by Narasimhan seeking bail. In the first case, involving the surreptitious recording of a phone call, the Court noted that all the materials related to the video had already been seized by the police.
Madras: The Madras High Court has granted bail to Rangarajan Narasimhan, a temple protection activist, in connection with two FIRs. One FIR involves a secretly recorded phone conversation between Narasimhan and seer Embaar Jeeyar about a puja allegedly held at the residence of Tamil Nadu’s Deputy CM, Udhayanidhi Stalin.
The second FIR concerns a woman’s complaint against Narasimhan for allegedly using derogatory words in response to her social media post about the same issue. Between December 15 and 25, seven FIRs were filed against him in different districts of Tamil Nadu. In one case, the Magistrate had refused to remand him to police custody.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan heard two petitions filed by Narasimhan seeking bail. In the first case, involving the surreptitious recording of a phone call, the Court noted that all the materials related to the video had already been seized by the police.
The Court stated, “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.” As a result, the Court granted bail with certain conditions.
Regarding the second case, the Court observed that the complaint filed by the woman did not attract the provisions of Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) or Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
The Court stated, “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.”
As the other charges were bailable, Narasimhan was granted bail with specific conditions, including refraining from making derogatory comments against women on social media.
In the first case, Narasimhan had allegedly recorded and uploaded a conversation with Embaar Jeeyar discussing the puja at Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin’s residence. Stalin was referred to as a “renowned personality” in the Court’s order.
The Court remarked, “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 several sections, including 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, along with Section 65 (Tampering with computer source documents) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. After his remand to judicial custody, his bail application was initially dismissed on December 20.
However, his lawyer argued that the Magistrate had already rejected the police custody request, indicating custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The Court granted bail with conditions, including a prohibition on contacting the three Matadhipathis or Stalin’s family members directly or indirectly regarding the case.
In the second case, a woman complained that Narasimhan used derogatory words in response to her social media post about his Supreme Court appearances.
The Court noted, “The petitioner used some derogatory words… in response to the same, the complainant lodged the said complaint.”
Narasimhan was charged under Sections 75 (Sexual harassment), 79 (Word, gesture, or act intended to insult modesty of a woman) of the BNS, Section 4 (Penalty for harassment of women) of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and Section 67 (Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act. The Court found no merit in applying Sections 75 or 4 of the BNS, granting bail with the condition that Narasimhan refrain from making vituperative comments against women on social media. He was also ordered to delete all offensive messages upon his release.
Narasimhan also faced additional FIRs alleging offenses under various sections of the BNS, and interim protection was obtained in some cases. He claimed that the police were engaging in a pattern of filing multiple cases to keep him incarcerated, which he argued was illegal and malicious.
The Court also addressed the issue of his arrest without warrant under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. While the police had issued a notice on December 15 for Narasimhan to appear the next day, the Court noted that the police could have waited 24 more hours before arresting him.
The Court observed, “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.”
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. State of Tamil Nadu [Crl.O.P. 32420 of 2024 and Crl.O.P. 32423 of 2024].
