Murugesan v. Inspector Of Police

P. DHANABAL.J., The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 196, 299 of B.N.S. and Section 67 of Information Technology Act in Cr. No.164 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2024 at about 18 hours, when the defacto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, C3 Saibaba Colony Police Station, was watching the face book page, he saw the posts which were in most disgusting way, made by the accused and since the same was on the verge of creating conflicts between the two religions and disturbing the public peace, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when the petitioner was browsing the facebook page, by mistake he shared the post of another person, but immediately he deleted the post. The alleged post was said to have been posted on 16.07.2024 and the FIR was registered on 20.07.2024. The petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner is ready to

abide by any condition imposed by this Court and he will co-operate for the investigation as and when required by the respondent police. Hence the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that totally there are 7 accused involved in this case and the petitioner is A1. The defacto complainant, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, C3-Saibaba Colony Police Station was watching the facebook page, he noticed the posts which were in most disgusting way and found that the same were made by the accused and as the same was on the verge of creating conflict between the two religions and disturbing the public peace, this case was registered against the accused persons. The learned Government Advocate, would further submit that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will indulge in similar nature of offences and hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions put forth on either side,

considering the nature of offences, considering the fact that the case is at initial stage of investigation and also taking into consideration the gravity of offences, I am declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. 16.08.2024.

mjs To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore. 2.The Inspector of Police, Saibaba Colony Police Station, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-600 104.

P. DHANABAL.J., mjs 16.08.2024