High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD).No.11259 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Reserved on :04.07.2025Pronounced on:18.07.2025CORAMThe HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAICRL OP(MD).No.11259 of 2025Palai Rafi @ Mohamed Rafi,S/o.Shahul Hameed ...Petitioner / Accused No.1 Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station,Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.93 of 2022) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Karuppasamy Pandian, for Mr.S.Subramanian, Advocate For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi,Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS, 2023.PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.93 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.11259 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / accused no.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 20.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 294(b), 504,505(i)(c) and 505(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.93 of 2022 on thefile of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 20.03.2022, a protest meeting wasorganized to object to the court's order preventing Muslim girls from wearing thehijab. The petitioner, being one of the speakers at the event, allegedly madederogatory remarks about the Judges who passed the order, as well as about leadersof non-political parties who supported the verdict. Furthermore, while raisingobjections to the judgment, the petitioner is said to have delivered a hate speechagainst all political parties, including the judiciary. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aninnocent persons and he has not committed any offence as alleged by theprosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against thepetitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner was already granted2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.11259 of 2025anticipatory bail in the present case, subject to certain stringent conditions.However, due to non-compliance with those conditions, the anticipatory bail orderlapsed. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 20.06.2025, and since then, he hasbeen in judicial custody. He would further submit that Accused No.2 in the samecase was granted anticipatory bail by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge,Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P. No.3269 of 2022, dated 19.04.2022. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that the petitioner is 60years old and a retired Ex-Army personnel. The alleged occurrence took place on20.03.2022. After the said alleged hate speech, no further untoward event hasoccurred. Moreover, the investigation in this case has already been completed.Therefore, continuing to keep the petitioner in prison at the pre-trial stage, wouldnot serve any purpose. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custodyfrom 20.06.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that thereare totally two accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed asA1. He would further submit that the petitioner, being one of the speakers at theevent, allegedly made derogatory remarks against the Judges who passed the order,3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.11259 of 2025as well as against the leaders of non-political parties who supported the verdict.Furthermore, while raising objections to the said judgment, the petitioner haddelivered a hate speech targeting all political parties, including the judiciary.Therefore, he opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused thematerials available on record.7. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is A1, prior to this presentpetition, he has already moved this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10257 of 2022, seekinganticipatory bail, wherein this Court granted anticipatory bail on 18.07.2022 withconditions, taking note of the undertaking affidavit dated 11.07.2022 filed by thepetitioner rendering his unconditional apology and also the fact that the mainspeakers in similar cases were already granted bail. But, unfortunately, due to non-compliance of certain conditions imposed in that anticipatory bail, the petitionerwas arrested on 20.06.2025 and he is in custody since then. Another fact is that theco-accused/Accused No.2 was granted anticipatory bail by the Principal SessionsCourt, Tirunelveli in Crl.M.P.No.3269 of 2022 on 19.04.2022. This was not objectedby the respondent police. The FIR was registered on 20.03.2022 and the investigation4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.11259 of 2025might have been completed by this time. There is no need for further interrogationon the petitioner by the respondent police. The petitioner, who is aged 60 years old,is in custody from 20.06.2025. Therefore, considering the above facts andcircumstances and also considering the incarceration period, this Court is inclined togrant bail to the petitioner with conditions.8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing abond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with twosureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.V, Tirunelveli, and on further conditions that:- (a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in thesurety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passBook to ensure their identity;(b) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and contact number tothe learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli. If the petitioner changes hisresidential address, he shall report the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V,Tirunelveli;(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m.until further orders;(d) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threatenthe witnesses and cause hindrance to the pending investigation or trial;[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.11259 of 2025[f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial;[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/TrialCourt is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance withlaw as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by thelearned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 269 BNS/229 A IPC. sd/- 18/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.PAL TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, TIRUNELVELI.2 DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.3 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI,TIRUNELVELI.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.11259 of 20254 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELAPALAYAM POLICE STATION,TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.+1. CC to M/S.SUBRAMANIAN.S (3489/2014) Advocate SR.No.7754 (I)DT.18/07/2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11259 of 2025 Date :18/07/2025NM/18.07.2025/ 7P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7