Madras High Court
Varaaki @ V.R.Krishna Kumar vs State Represented By on 6 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.26611 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.26611 of 2025
Varaaki @ V.R.Krishna Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Kancheepuram.
(Crime No.1 of 2025) ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to set aside the remand extension order dated
08.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Chengalpattu
in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Anbumani
for Mr.P.Rajkumar Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.26611 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the remand
extension order, dated 08.09.2025, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1 at Chengalpattu, in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the
respondent Police, registered for the offences under 465, 466, 468, 471,
420, 120-B, 419 r/w. 109 IPC.
2.The petitioner claims to be an independent video journalist and
whistle blower. He raises voice against corruption and misuse of power in
order to create public awareness. He publishes informative videos on
YouTube, highlighting the corrupt practices and abuse of authority. Since
he has been disclosing various illegalities and misuse of power, several
Police officers and public servants, whose corrupt activities were exposed,
turned vindictive against him. As a consequence, he became a target of
retaliation. He was subjected to malicious prosecution and continuous
harassment at the hands of those very authorities whose misconduct he had
brought to light. As a consequence, five criminal cases have been foisted as
against the petitioner, one after the other, within a short span of one month
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
during the last September and October, 2024, resulting in his arrest and
remand to prison for 132 days. The petitioner approached this Court as
against the repeated filing of FIRs against him, with a prayer to transfer the
cases to CBCID. This Court, by a common order, dated 13.02.2025, in
Crl.O.P.Nos.31418, 31419, 31425, 31426 and 31429 of 2024, transferred
the cases to CBCID. While passing such order, this Court also recorded the
fact that, in order to prevent the petitioner from his activities, with a mala
fide intention, the respondents 1 and 2 therein had foisted false cases as
against the petitioner, that too, within a short span of time.
3.Despite transfer of cases to CBCID, as no progress has been made,
the petitioner sent a representation, dated 16.08.2025, to the Monitoring
Authority, namely, the Director General of Police (Administration),
requesting his immediate intervention to ensure justice in accordance with
the orders of this Court. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
CBCID, contacted the petitioner calling upon him to attend an enquiry on
08.09.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai Metro at Egmore. Thereafter, at
about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m., the petitioner was apprehended by the Deputy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, and he was retained for about
three hours and thereafter, produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1, Chengalpattu, at about 10.00 p.m. on 08.09.2025. During the remand
proceedings, the petitioner specifically stated before the learned Magistrate
that he was not informed about the reasons for his arrest. Despite the said
fact, the learned Magistrate has remanded him. Hence, according to the
petitioner, as long as there is no communication of grounds of arrest, the
remand is illegal and the Police have failed to comply with the provisions
of Section 50 Cr.P.C. and the safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India. Hence, it is his contention that the entire remand
order passed by the learned Magistrate has to be set aside.
4.A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Police. It is
the contention of the respondent that, on the basis of the complaint of one
P.Saravanan, S/o.Ponnusamy, with regard to creation of false documents
and impersonation, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.3 of 2024 for
the offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B, 419, 420 and 109
IPC and the accused namely Srinivasan, Murugesan and Sekar were
arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Pursuant to the orders of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
Court in Crl.O.P.No.26821 of 2024, the case was transferred to the CBCID
for further investigation and accordingly, the case was renumbered as Crime
No.1 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B,
419, 420 and 109 IPC. During investigation, on the basis of confession
statement given by the primary accused Senthil Kumar, it came to light that
there was conspiracy to grab the land of the de facto complainant. As per
the confession, the present petitioner, on coming to know about the forged
documents created by other accused, has given a protest petition before the
Sub-Registrar's Office. Latter, the protest petition has been withdrawn.
This has been made only to extract money. Therefore, according to the
prosecution, there is a clear conspiracy established as against the petitioner.
It is further stated that there are eight criminal cases pending as against the
present petitioner as follows :
1. Chennai CBCID, OCU-I Crime No.2 of 2025 under Sections 189,
353, 505(i)(b) IPC and 66D of IT Act, 2000.
2. Chennai CBCID, OCU-I Crime No.3 of 2025 under Sections 34,
294(b), 406, 420, 307, 506(i) IPC.
3. Chennai CBCID, OCU-II, Crime No.2 of 2025, under Sections
294(b), 447, 189, 353, 387, 307, 506(ii) IPC and 66D of IT Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
4. Chennai CBCID, OCU-II, Crime No.3 of 2025 under Sections 420,
465, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
5. Chennai CBCID Metro Crime No.4 of 2025 under Sections 406, 420,
506(ii) IPC.
6. Chennai Kilpauk Police Station Crime No.232 of 2025 under
Sections 192, 353(1)(b), 353(3) BNS.
7. Chennai Triplicane Police Station Crime No.503 of 2025 under
Sections 296(b), 353, 353, 351(2) BNS and 67 of IT Act.
8. Chennai City CCD-1 South Crime No.23 of 2025 under Sections
192, 296(b), 353(2) BNS r/w.67 of IT Act.
5.According to them, at the time of arrest, the Inspector of Police,
CBCID, called the petitioner's wife, but she did not attend the phone call
purposefully. Hence, the arrest intimation was sent through SMS to the
petitioner's wife Tmt.Neelima. Subsequently, during the arrest of the
petitioner, his sister Tmt.Kokila was allowed to meet him at the office of the
CBCID, Kancheepuram District, while she was asked to receive the arrest
intimation. The arrest Note copy containing a brief summary of the grounds
of arrest was also served to the petitioner/accused before producing him
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu. Hence,
according to them, the proper procedure has been followed. Hence, it is the
contention of the respondent that the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest
itself cannot constitute a valid ground for grant of bail.
6.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit
that the reasons for arrest have not been informed at the time of arrest. The
petitioner was implicated under the premise of enquiry relating to the
previous cases which were transferred to CBCID at the instance of the
petitioner. The petitioner, being a YouTuber, was purposefully targeted.
The grounds of arrest have not been informed and therefore, it is in
violation of the Constitutional mandate. Further, the very remand extension
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate indicates that the grounds of
arrest have not been informed to the accused. The learned Magistrate,
though recorded that the grounds of arrest have not been explained, has
held that the same cannot be a ground for releasing the accused on bail.
Therefore, the impugned order itself clearly indicates that the grounds have
not been informed to the accused. In support of his contentions, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
i. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024)
8 SCC 254
ii. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another [Criminal
Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13320 of 2024, dated 07.02.2025]
iii. D.Alexis Sudhakar v. The Inspector of Police, E-1
Mamallapuram Police Station, Chengalpet [Crl.R.C.No.1392
of 2024, dated 21.07.2025]
iv. Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh reported in (2025) SCC
Online SC 1318.
7.Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent Police, would submit that the arrest memo clearly indicates
the grounds and a SMS has also been sent to the petitioner's wife intimating
the arrest of the petitioner. He would further submit that there is no
requirement under law to inform the grounds of arrest in writing to the
petitioner/accused. Therefore, the order of remand extension cannot be set
aside. Hence, he opposed the petition. In support of his contentions, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, etc. reported
in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1702.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
8.I have perused the entire materials available on record.
9.The main ground on which the remand extension order is sought to
be set aside is that the grounds of arrest have not been informed in writing
to the accused. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254,
has held as follows :
“29.Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the
requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the
grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in
connection with an offence or a person placed under
preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and
22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be
breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this
constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead
to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the
case may be.
30.Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have
already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal
[Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576] laying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must
be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an
offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of the learned
ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate
the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant-accused is
noted to be rejected.”
10.Similarly, in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another
[Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.13320 of 2024, dated 07.02.2025], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
“21.Therefore, we conclude :
.... (f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it
is the duty of the Court to forthwith order the release of the
accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory
restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory
restrictions do not affect the power of the Court to grant bail
when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is
established.”
11.A combined reading of the above judgments would clearly show
that, if the grounds of arrest are not informed in writing, the accused is
entitled to bail. Whereas, in the judgment relied upon by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
Additional Public Prosecutor in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, etc.
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1702, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as follows :
“20.1.2.Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that
“no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody
without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for
such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to
be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice”. Similarly,
Section 50 (1) Cr. P.C. requires that “every police officer or
other person arresting any person without warrant shall
forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence
for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
20.1.3.The constitutional and statutory framework thus
mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the
grounds of arrest - but neither provision prescribes a specific
form or insists upon written communication in every case.
Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance
with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable
prejudice is shown.
20.1.4.In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana22, it was
reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made
aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh23, it was observed that when arrest is made
pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to
sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal
decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not
an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.
20.1.5.While Section 50 Cr. P.C. is mandatory, the
consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-
oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The
mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the
arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or
denial of a fair opportunity to defend.”
12.In the latter judgment, the Apex Court has taken a view that,
written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all
circumstances and held that mere absence of written grounds does not ipso
facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or
denial of a fair opportunity to defend. Therefore, merely because the
reasons have not been informed in writing, it cannot be a ground to set
aside the remand order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
13.However, in the present case, the fact remains that there is no
material to show as to how the reasons or grounds of arrest was informed to
the petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that they orally informed
the reasons to the petitioner or to his family members. Except stating that
the arrest memo was communicated to the petitioner's wife through SMS,
the prosecution has not stated the manner in which the reasons for arrest
were informed. In the arrest memo, the reasons of arrest have not been
given. Therefore, as long as there is no material placed by the prosecution
to show that the reasons for arrest have been properly informed either orally
or in writing, it has to be necessarily held that it is a clear case of violation
of Constitutional mandate, which, in fact, enables the accused to seek for
bail.
14.Further, the charge against the petitioner is that, while the main
accused was involved in land grabbing, the petitioner, knowing very well
about the falsification of records, have prevented the other accused from
registering the documents by filing a protest petition before the Sub-
Registrar's Office and later, he withdrew the petition. The only material
against this accused is the confession statement recorded from one Senthil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
Kumar, the other accused, to sustain the charge against this petitioner. In
such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that, though the remand
extension order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the reasons
for arrest have not been informed in writing, as the prosecution have failed
to demonstrate that they have informed the grounds of arrest either orally or
in writing, the petitioner is certainly entitled to bail.
15.Considering the nature of the offence and the materials collected
against the petitioner and the fact that he has been implicated mainly on the
basis of the alleged confession given by the co-accused and also having
regard to the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 08.09.2025,
i.e., almost nearly a month, and he has also been taken in Police custody
and examined, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in
keeping him under prolonged custody. In such view of the matter, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail.
16.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
impugned remand extension order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.1 at Chengalpattu, dated 08.09.2025, is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
17.Further, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand
only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Chengalpattu, and on further
conditions that:
(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left
Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship
[Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal
Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate
shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs
to ensure their identity;
(b) the petitioner shall report before the Judicial
Magistrate No.1 at Chengalpattu, daily at 10.30
a.m., until further orders;
(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or
witness either during investigation or trial;
(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial.
(e) on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions,
the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass
appropriate orders against the petitioner in
accordance with law as if the aforementioned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
conditions have been imposed and the petitioner
released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court
himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC
283];
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be
registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
06.10.2025
mkn
Note to Registry : Issue order copy on 07.10.2025.
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Kancheepuram.
3.The Superintendent,
Chengalpattu Prison.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
06.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 05:11:33 pm )
