Madras High Court Rejects Senthil Balaji's Plea Alleging Police Harassment In Pending Criminal Investigations

While dismissing the plea, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan orally remarked that the relief sought for in the plea was premature and that the police could not be prevented from investigating if there was material.

A detailed order copy is awaited.

Balaji had approached the court seeking direction to the police not to harass him under the guise of search, enquiry or investigation, and if his presence was required in any pending or proposed case, to issue proper written notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS as mandated in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar.

It was argued that Balaji was not seeking blanket immunity from investigation but only seeking to prevent harassment, roving searches and coercive steps contrary to law. He argued that following the Karur tragedy, he had conducted a press meet exposing an attempt to blame him. He argued that the said press meet created an animosity and hatred against him in the minds of the present ruling party (TVK).

It was argued that this animosity was evident from a recent public speech made by the Minister for PWD and Sports, Aadhav Arjuna, where the matter was publicly declared that there were “scores to settle”. He further submitted that there were reports of political instructions to arrest Balaji before the Chief Minister's proposed visit to Karur to meet the families of victims.

Balaji argued that ever since the present ruling dispensation came to power, attempts are being made to implicate him and his brother in criminal cases. It was submitted that a 2023 income tax case, involving his brother, was sought to be revived, which would show a continuing attempt to use old and collateral cases to target the duo

Balaji also submitted that there were attempts made to implicate him and his brother in a recent case regarding allegations of horse trading in connection with a TVK MLA. He submitted that the accused in the case were threatened and forced by the police to take the names of Balaji and his brother, which would show that the investigation was being steered to introduce their names through custodial pressure.

It was further submitted that though Balaji and his brother had obtained an anticipatory bail from the High Court, the police continued to conduct search operations and put continuous pressure on Balaji and his family. It was thus argued that the continued search was not for any bona fide investigation but to humiliate the duo.

Thus, he had sought direction to the police not to harass him under the guise of investigation into criminal cases.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr NR Elango, Senior Advocate for Mr Vinoth Kumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Senthil Balaji v The Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

Case No: Crl OP 19753 of 2026