Anticipatory bail denied due to prima facie evidence of involvement in abduction and conspiracy, demonstrating need for custodial interrogation.

ORDER

The petitioner, who is a sitting MLA of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, apprehending arrest by the respondent police, for the alleged offences under Sections 189(2), 329(4) and 140(3) of the BNS 2023, has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., r/w 482 of BNSS 2023.

2.According to the petitioner, FIR in Crime No.101 of 2025, on the file of the D2, Thiruvalangadu Police Station, was registered based on fabricated, concocted complaint without any basis. Pleadings that he is noway connected with the alleged abduction of a minor boy, who is the son of the defacto complainant and which is the basis for registering the First Information Report, he claims that the respondent police, without any proper reason, came to his house to enquire him in connection with Crime No.101 of 2025. Being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, the local residents gathered. Taking this as a reason, the respondent police is trying to arrest him without following due process of law and the act of the respondent police is highly contemptuous and misuse of power to satisfy the third party. Alleging that, for the political reasons, the attempts are made to falsely ragging in the said case, the petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail.

3. The petitioner through his counsel contended that knowing that for the oblique reason, the respondent police are pursuing the petitioner, the anticipatory bail petition was filed on 15.06.2025 and thereafter, pending disposal of the petition, the petitioner appeared before the respondent police on 17.06.2025 and co-operated with the respondent police for investigation. He had given a statement to the police explaining his innocence and he is any time ready to appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation.

4. Mr.S.Prabhakaran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that being a responsible citizen and member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, there is no reason for the respondent police to fear that the petitioner will abscond or temper the evidence. In the entire life of the petitioner, there is not even single criminal complaint. If the petitioner is arrested, his reputation and image will be badly affected. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in [2025 INSC 725] , order dated 16.05.2025.

5. Mr.J.Ravindran, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a status report of the investigation and submitted that it is a case of house trespass in order to commit kidnap of a minor boy and put him in danger of being murdered, if he does not disclose the whereabouts of his elder brother. The said offence committed in pursuant to the criminal conspiracy in which the petitioner had played a pivotal role. Being the member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, he use this clout with his supporters and prevented the respondent police from discharging their duty when they went to the residence of the petitioner for interrogation. Without co-operating with the investigation, he approached the High Court filing anticipatory bail and thereafter, even on appearance before the respondent police, he did not co-operate with the investigation, when he was confronted with incriminating evidence collected during the course of investigation.

6. The petitioner by misusing his political status, is preventing fair investigation. The case, which was earlier registered by the Thiruvalangadu Police Station in Crime No.101 of 2025