Karur Stampede: Madras High Court Reserves Verdict On Pleas By TVK Party Functionaries Seeking Anticipatory Bail

The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday (October 3) reserved its verdict in anticipatory bail pleas moved by two functionaries of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party apprehending arrest in connection with the stampede that took place during the party's rally in Karur last Saturday. 

After hearing the parties for some time, Justice M Jothiraman reserved its verdict on the pleas moved by party General Secretary N. Anand @ Bussy Anand and Joint Secretary CTR Nirmal Kumar.

The duo were apprehending arrest for offences under Section 105 [Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder], 110 [attempt to commit culpable homicide], 125(b) [act endangering life or personal safety of others], 223 [disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant] of BNS along with Section 3 [punishment for committing mischief in respect of property] of Tamil Nadu Public Property (prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992.

Crowd management entirely lies with State

During the hearing counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted, "There was no policeman anywhere near the crowd. I will show how the entire case was manipulated by the State. I have no intention to kill my own cadres...What is the basic allegation ?...Both offences require intention to commit culpable homicide. An accident cannot be converted into culpable homicide". 

He further submitted that the authorities had given permission to hold the meeting between 3-10 PM on Saturday

"My leader comes at 6 PM. The crowd was so much. No one can blame people. They wanted to see leader. I would have expected police to give appropriate protection. I am accusing them, not blaming them. The State takes responsibility. I give application to police telling 'so much people are to come and give me permission'. I was given permission," he said. 

Arguing that none of the offences are applicable, the counsel submitted that if the authorities had found the spots identified for conducting the meeting as objectionable, then they should have rejected the application for holding the meeting. 

"It is not on account of persons who were present at the spot, the policemen indulged in going on a spree. Certain rowdy persons were also there. Why should police indulge in lathi charge when entire crowd was standing there?" the counsel said. 

He further submitted that not one regulation imposed on conduct of the meeting had been breached. He said that there was no damage to any public property and no complaint from any policeman that the party functionaries did not listen to them.

"If I had breached any conditions, I would have had notice from Police. No notice. I represent party at state level. If in a meeting, some accident takes place, would they charge secretary at state level? Would they say CM is responsible? Charging those persons who are holding the meet? Mistake lies elsewhere," the counsel said. 

He submitted that the responsibility of managing the crowd lies entirely on the State.

Police could not have lathi charged directly

"In case there had been some unruly crowd…. It is nobody's case that cadre resorted to violence. They were waiting to hear their leader. Somebody then threw the slippers. I have video where certain type of chemical was thrown which would make persons faint. After that police does lathi charge. I ask when lathi charge could be resorted to? First there should be warning. Then tear gas. Then shooting below. Straightaway lathi charge for what? This created a situation (of) one falling over the other. The entire mess because of police," he added.

The petitioner's counsel said, "An allegation is made that I made no efforts to manage the crowd.What is the intention of a secretary of a political party? Would i invite people to a political meeting to ensure that their lives would be snatched? What adverse intention I can have regarding my own people?".

He said that the State's entire case was that the petitioner should have taken care which was not done. He submitted that if the duty is cast upon the petitioner and he fails to discharge it, even then it would not come under criminal law.

At this stage the court asked, "As an organizer, whether you have any responsibility on public as a whole while gathering?".  To this the counsel said, "I am not an organizer. That person was another. He has been arrested. I am nowhere in the scene. I am sitting at state level. The police has committed the mistake".

The court then asked whether the organizers had a responsibility or duty towards the gathering.

To this the counsel said, "They should. And every thing was orderly. Till the time lathi charge was resorted to by the police". He further argued as to why was the petitioner roped in. 

He said that while deaths at the stampede was sad, however it should not be seen as a criminal case against the petitioner. 

People who absconded not entitled to bail

Meanwhile the State's counsel submitted that petitioners should have disclosed that the pleas were regarding former or sitting MLAs, and if this was mentioned the matter would have gone to the Principal Seat and as per roster it should come before special bench. He said that this information was deliberately not disclosed. 

Countering the petitioners' contention that there was no intention behind the deaths of 41 people, the counsel said, "If at all there is any material to show that there was intention, case should have been registered under 302. We have registered 304 because we also aware that it is not intention". 

The State said that it had recorded statements and the investigation is at nascent stage. It submitted, "We cant find out real person who is (the) cause for stampede. Entire thing was organized by these two petitioners. We are collecting materials. Question is what is the role played by them in the cause of the death.

On the court's query as to why didn't the State cancel the permission, the Counsel said, "We cant plan that stampede would be there. Not (a) single announcement from petitioner to calm the crowd. What steps were taken by them during stampede? Was there any public announcement by them to behave properly? No."

To this court remarked, "The crowd included minors and school going children. Was it not part of the police to regulate crowd?"

The counsel however said that the party had not even provided basic amenities. He questioned the steps taken by the party's office bearers adding that not even a single announcement was made by them to the crowd to behave properly.

"It is unfortunate incident. But these people didn't even care for their own cadres. They even absconded from the scene. All police personnel took victims and dead people to the hospital. The persons who absconded whether they are entitled to anticipatory bail?," the counsel said. 

The counsel said that the petitioner's apprehension was totally unwarranted and it was a political strategy to justify their act of not taking steps for their own cadres.

The court at this stage asked about the role of the event organizers and law enforcement agencies, before the incident. 

To which the counsel said that the police can only prevent the petitioners from third parties but this was a case of the party's own people making ruckus.

He said, "It was not public doing it. Their own cadres. They weren't able to control their own cadres.The post mortem report showed that most died from dehydration. They should have given drinking water facilities. The cause of death is dehydration and asphyxia. We know it is not intentional. We know it is only 304 part 2. The person who organized has been arrested...". 

He further said that immediately after incident, the petitioners ran away and filed anticipatory bail and took no responsibility of their own cadres. 

He further submitted that it was too early a stage to decide on accusations.

"If at all you want more investigation, we would be issuing summons to appear. No one can claim to be above law," he added.

After hearing the parties the court reserved its verdict. 

The case of the prosecution is that the party had sought permission to conduct a political meeting on 27th September 2025, between 3pm and 10pm, with an anticipated crowd of 10,000 persons. However, around 25,000 persons gathered at the rally.

Anand and Kumar have argued that they have been falsely implicated in the case merely because of their political position. It has been submitted that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and are innocent in the case.

Case title: N ANAND ALIAS BUSSY ANAND VS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 

CRL OP(MD)/16811/2025

AND

CTR. NIRMAL KUMAR v/s STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

CRL OP(MD)/16803/2025