Bail is permissible even if preventive detention is in force if facts merit grant of relief.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner / Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.302 of 2026 registered on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 125, 132, 109(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2026 and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2026 at about 3.30 a.m. The petitioner’s earlier bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.162 of 2026 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, came to be dismissed on 24.04.2026. The present petition is stated to be the first bail petition before this Court.

C ase of the Prosecution :

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2026 at Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, by a police team and was being brought to Puzhal Police Station, Chennai. While the police vehicle reached near Kavangarai, the vehicle was stopped to enable the petitioner to answer nature’s call. The petitioner was allegedly taken aside by the Police Inspector, Mr.Buhari.

4. At that time, the de facto complainant, namely Mr.Dhanasekaran, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station, is stated to have reached the said place and remained near the vehicle. It is alleged that Accused Nos.2 to 5, who came in another car, picked up a quarrel with the de facto complainant, abused him in filthy language, pelted stones at him and threatened the police personnel.

5. It is further alleged that the petitioner also joined the other accused, threw stones and caused panic among the public. On the above allegations, Crime No.302 of 2026 came to be registered against the petitioner and the other accused.

S ubmissions on behalf of the Petitioner :

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution case is artificial, concocted and inherently unbelievable. According to him, the petitioner was admittedly in the custody and physical control of the respondent police when the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner, while in police custody, had pelted stones and caused panic is wholly improbable.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner was illegally secured at Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, on 08.04.2026 at about 6.00 a.m. and was brought to Chennai by the respondent police. While he was in the custody of the police, the present case has been foisted against him with an ulterior motive.

8. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a journalist, political satirist, blogger and investigative reporter running a digital media platform under the name and style of “Savukku”. It is contended that he has been subjected to repeated criminal proceedings, preventive detention orders and police action on account of malicious and retaliatory prosecution.

9. A serious contradiction is also pointed out between the prosecution version in Crime No.258 of 2026 and Crime No.302 of 2026. In Crime No.258 of 2026, it is alleged that the petitioner escaped from Priya Residency, Chittoor Road, at about 2.00 a.m. on 08.04.2026 in an Innova Crysta car bearing Registration No.AP-39 WD 2525 and that the hotel manager, Mr.Praveen, accompanied the police team in a separate vehicle for nearly 250 kilometres to identify the said car, which ultimately led to the petitioner’s apprehension at Ongole.

10. However, in the present Crime No.302 of 20