DMK GenZ Wing Coordinator Withdraws Anticipatory Bail Plea In Case For Making 'Derogatory' Post Against Tamil Nadu CM, Women

Justice C Kumarappan permitted the withdrawal of the plea at the request of Senior Advocate NR Elango.

Elango had sought withdrawal after the court expressed its disinclination to grant the anticipatory bail.

“He has taken everything as a carte blanche. I'm not inclined. The legal question of whether custodial interrogation is needed or not is different. This is about the conscience of society,” the court orally observed.

Though Elango informed the court that Anbanantham was willing to tender an apology and file an affidavit stating that he would not make such comments in the future, the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, noting that such actions should not be allowed to go scot-free.

“If we allow such things scot free..If you look at that portion (of the post) and look at the society, the society looks up at the court,” the judge orally remarked.

Anbanantham was booked by the Rayakottai Police Station for a social media post in which he made 'derogatory' comments about the Chief Minister, his family and another actor. It was alleged that Anbanantham insulted women by inciting against the Government and made vulgar comments about cine actresses in general. He was booked for offences under Section 79, 351(3), 352 and 353(1)(b) of the BNS and under Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986.

Anbanantham had previously approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, seeking anticipatory bail. While dismissing the petition, the judge had noted that while a person had the authority to question the government for its actions, they had no authority to question a person for their private actions. The judge had thus rejected Anbanantham's argument that he was exercising his right to criticise the government. The judge had observed that criticising a person for their private life was not criticising the government.

The Sessions Judge had also noted that the investigation was at a crucial stage, and if he were given anticipatory bail, there was a reasonable apprehension that he would tamper with the electronic evidence, influence the witnesses or continue to upload similar objectionable content, thus hampering the investigation.

Approaching the High Court, Anbanantham, in his plea, argued that the complaint was frivolous and devoid of merit. Anbanantham submitted that he was willing to abide by any stringent condition that the court may impose and also assured that he was willing to offer complete cooperation for the investigation and not tamper with any evidence or witness.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr NR Elango, Senior Advocate

Counsel for Respondents: Ms RS Indira, Government Advocate (Crl Side)

Case Title: Anbanantham v The State

Case No: Crl OP 17010 of 2026