V.Dineshpandian v. The State Represented By Its The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.V.Dineshpandian 2.C.Karthika ... Petitioners Vs.
The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, East Zone, Vepery, Chennai.
(Crime No.03 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.03 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.D.Lakshmipathy For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 192, 296(b) and 353(1)(b) of BNS, in Crime No.03 of 2026 on the file of the 1/6
respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one YouTuber posted a video against the police department. It is alleged that, on the date of occurrence, the accused persons herein gave wrong comments for the said video against the police department and spreading the same and thereby committed the alleged offence. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were innocent and have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the petitioners had posted defamatory statements on social media. He would further submit that the petitioners have been issued summons to appear for investigation.
2/6
5. In view of the subsequent development, namely issuance of summons, this Court is of the view that no custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:
(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
3/6
(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 17.03.2026 cda 4/6
To 1.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, East Zone, Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
cda 17.03.2026 6/6