- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madras High Court
- /
- Madras High Court Denies Pre-Arrest...
Madras High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To TVK Namakkal District Secretary Over Roadshow Rampage, Says Should've Controlled Party Members
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
3 Oct 2025 2:43 PM IST
The Madras High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Namakkal District Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party, N Satish Kumar in connection with a violence that took place on September 27th, allegedly involving party cadres.Justice N Senthilkumar, while dismissing the plea for anticipatory bail, held that as the District Secretary of the party, Kumar should have kept...
The Madras High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Namakkal District Secretary of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party, N Satish Kumar in connection with a violence that took place on September 27th, allegedly involving party cadres.
Justice N Senthilkumar, while dismissing the plea for anticipatory bail, held that as the District Secretary of the party, Kumar should have kept the cadres of the party under control and prevented them from causing any damage to the public property.
Kumar had approached the court apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992. The prosecution case was that on 27th September, during TVK's political campaign (roadshow) at Namakkal District, some unknown persons had entered Dr Lakshmanan Multi Speciality Hospital and damaged the CCTV cameras, LED boards, ceiling glass etc.
Kumar submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case only due to political rivalry and argued that the allegations were false and baseless. He further submitted that the prosecution case itself did not disclose any offence and mere presence at the political campaign cannot be a basis for fastening the criminal liability.
He also submitted that he was a law abiding citizen and was willing to co-operate with the investigation. He also submitted that no useful purpose would be served by incarcerating him in judicial custody as custodial interrogation was not necessary in the case.
Thus, he had sought for anticipatory bail. The court has however dismissed the plea.
Case Title: N Sathish Kumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
Case No: Crl OP 27460 of 2025