Madras High Court quashes police notice to journalist, says summons without FIR is illegal
Chennai: The Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench has set aside a police notice issued to journalist Vimal Chinnappan, ruling that the police had no authority to summon or question him in the absence of a registered criminal case. The court held that the action violated established legal procedure and amounted to an abuse of power.
While allowing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Sunder Mohan, quashed the notice dated October 26, 2025. It had been issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Srivilliputhur Sub Division in Virudhunagar district under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The judge also observed that Section 35 of the BNSS only outlines the circumstances under which a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant. He also noted that it does not empower the police to summon or question an individual when no case has been registered against them.
According to a Maktoob Media report, the police had claimed that the notice was connected to an investigation in a criminal case registered in 2023 involving offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, during the proceedings, it was acknowledged by the State that the investigation in that case had already been completed and a final report had been filed before the Special Court for SC/ST cases in Virudhunagar.
According to the police, while examining the 2023 case, they came across an article written by the petitioner and published in a journal, which they alleged contained defamatory remarks against the police. Based on this, the Deputy Superintendent of Police issued a notice to the journalist, listing twelve questions and seeking an explanation for his writing.
The petitioner opposed the notice, claiming that it failed to describe the criminal number to which it referred. The petitioner also noted that it did not specify whether he was being summoned as an accused, witness, or suspect. He further stated that even if the article was believed to be defamatory, the police could not interview him without first filing a separate case, especially as defamation actions against the police may only be commenced through a private complaint to a competent court.
The High Court noted that most of the questions in the notice were centred on the contents of the article and were unrelated to the concluded 2023 investigation. Justice Sunder Mohan observed that if the police sought to question the petitioner in connection with any other matter, they were legally bound to clearly mention the details of a registered case. In the absence of any such case, the notice lacked legal foundation.
Setting aside the notice, the court clarified that its order would not prevent the police from taking action in accordance with the law in the future and stated that if a valid criminal case is registered and the petitioner’s presence is required for investigation, the police would be free to proceed as permitted by law.
The petitioner was represented by advocate R. Karunanidhi, while the State was represented by Government Advocate K. Sanjai Gandhi.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC grants anticipatory bail to man accused of making derogatory posts on Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has granted conditional anticipatory bail to a man from Bantwal accused of sharing obscene and derogatory social media posts against RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat.
Allowing the criminal petition filed by the accused, Sharukh (30), a single-judge Bench headed by Shivashankar Amarannavar held that anticipatory bail could be granted after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The case was registered at Bantwal Town police station following allegations that objectionable posts were uploaded from Facebook and Instagram accounts bearing the name “Sharukh Koppal”, which allegedly promoted hatred between communities and disturbed public peace. Whether the applicant himself operated the accounts and posted the content is a matter to be determined during investigation and trial, the court observed.
The court noted that the accused had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the court. It also took into account that the alleged offences do not attract punishment of life imprisonment or death penalty, and that the accused does not have any criminal antecedents.
ALSO READ: Belthangady: Body of missing 15-year-old boy found in pond near home
Accordingly, the court directed that if Sharukh is arrested, Bantwal Town police should release him on bail. As part of the conditions, he has been asked to appear before the investigating officer within 10 days and execute a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with one surety for the same amount. He has also been directed to cooperate with the investigation, appear whenever required, and not influence or threaten witnesses, either directly or indirectly, or tamper with evidence.
The complaint in the case was filed on November 2, 2025, by K Krishnappa, who alleged that obscene and abusive language was used against Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat on social media platforms, with the intent of creating enmity between religious communities and disturbing public order. Based on the complaint, police had registered an FIR.
Sharukh had earlier approached the Mangaluru district and sessions court seeking anticipatory bail, but his plea was rejected. He then moved the High Court.
During the hearing, counsel for the accused Rashif Nairmoole argued that Sharukh had not posted any such content and that his social media accounts could have been hacked or misused by someone who knew his passwords. He submitted that the accused was willing to cooperate fully with the police and comply with any conditions imposed by the court, and sought grant of anticipatory bail, which was ultimately allowed by the High Court.
