Madras HC Grants Bail to TVK Leader, Citing Incarceration Period and Altered FIR

CHENNAI, INDIA – In a significant order concerning personal liberty amidst high-profile public incidents, the Madras High Court has granted bail to N Venkatesan, the Salem District Secretary of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party. Venkatesan was arrested in connection with the alleged assault on an ambulance driver and damage to the vehicle following the tragic Karur Stampede in September 2025.

The single-judge bench of Justice S Srimathy, while granting relief, underscored several crucial factors including the period of incarceration already served by the accused, the principle of parity with a co-accused, and noteworthy procedural aspects related to the investigation and the First Information Report (FIR).

Background of the Case

The case stems from the chaotic aftermath of the Karur Stampede on September 27, 2025, a tragic event that resulted in 41 fatalities. According to the prosecution's allegations, as an ambulance arrived on the scene to provide aid to the victims, Venkatesan, along with other party functionaries, obstructed its path. He was accused of assaulting the driver and smashing the rear windshield of the ambulance.

Following the incident, Venkatesan was arrested by the Karur Town Police and remanded to judicial custody on October 9, 2025. He was booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 191(2) for Rioting, 296(b) for obscene acts, 115(2) for voluntarily causing hurt, 127(2) for wrongful confinement, and 351(2) for criminal intimidation. Crucially, the charges also included Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, a non-bailable offense that significantly strengthened the prosecution's case against bail.

Arguments Before the Court

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel Mr. M. Subash Babu argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. A key submission was the duration of Venkatesan's custody, with the defense emphasizing that he had been in judicial custody since October 9, 2025, and that his continued detention was not warranted.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Veera Kathiravan, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution contended that the allegations were serious, involving an attack on an emergency service provider during a public tragedy. The AAG informed the court of the State's intention to file a petition seeking custodial interrogation of Venkatesan to further the investigation. This move signaled the prosecution's belief that crucial information could still be elicited from the accused.

The Court's Rationale for Granting Bail

After considering the arguments from both sides, Justice Srimathy was inclined to grant bail, basing the decision on a meticulous evaluation of the case's facts and procedural history.

1. Period of Incarceration: The Court gave significant weight to the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner. The judgment implicitly recognizes the legal principle that pre-trial detention should not become punitive. As stated in the source, the court explicitly considered "the period of incarceration suffered" as a primary reason for granting relief.

2. Procedural Lapses and Delays by the Prosecution: A critical observation by the Court pertained to the prosecution's stated intent to seek custodial interrogation. The State had informed the bench that it planned to file a petition for police custody before the jurisdictional magistrate. However, Justice Srimathy noted pointedly, "such a petition had not been filed yet." This inaction by the prosecution weakened its argument for continued detention, as it suggested a lack of urgency or immediate necessity for custodial questioning.

3. Alteration of the FIR: The Court also scrutinized the evolution of the charges against Venkatesan. The judgment highlights a crucial detail: "initially the FIR was filed under a bailable offence and was later modified to include Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, which was non-bailable." While the police have the power to add or alter sections as an investigation progresses, courts often examine the timing and basis of such modifications during bail hearings. This subsequent addition of a non-bailable offense may have been viewed by the court as a factor to be weighed alongside the other circumstances of the case, rather than an absolute bar to bail.

4. The Principle of Parity: Furthermore, the Court took note of the status of the co-accused in the matter. The bench observed that the "first accused had already surrendered and was granted bail." The doctrine of parity is a well-established principle in bail jurisprudence, suggesting that if an accused with similar or more serious allegations has been granted bail, a co-accused should generally be afforded the same relief unless there are compelling reasons to differentiate.

Bail Conditions and Legal Implications

In its final order, the Court directed Venkatesan to be released upon executing a surety for Rs. 10,000. The bail is subject to stringent conditions aimed at ensuring his cooperation with the investigation and preventing any potential interference. He is required to report before the Karur Town Police Station daily at 10:30 a.m. for one week and thereafter as and when required by the authorities. The order also explicitly states that he shall not abscond or tamper with evidence or witnesses.

This judgment serves as a practical illustration of the multi-faceted considerations in a bail hearing. It demonstrates that even in cases linked to public outrage and serious allegations, the judiciary remains focused on the tenets of criminal procedure and the fundamental rights of the accused. The order underscores that the prosecution cannot merely oppose bail on the grounds of an intention to seek custodial interrogation; it must act on that intention promptly. For legal practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of highlighting pre-trial detention periods and scrutinizing the procedural history of an FIR as potent arguments in favor of granting bail.

Case Details: * Case Title: N Venkatesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu * Case Number: CRL OP(MD)No.18221 of 2025 * Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Subash Babu (Senior Counsel) for Mr. S. Arivazhagan * Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Veera Kathiravan (Additional Advocate General) assisted by Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar (Additional Public Prosecutor)