Probe At Crucial Stage: Madras HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Ex-TN BJP General Secy In Sexual Exploitation Case

The Madras High Court has denied anticipatory bail to former Tamil Nadu BJP General Secretary M. Muruganantham alias Karuppu in a criminal case involving allegations of sexual exploitation on a false promise of marriage and circulation of nude photographs, videos and morphed images of a woman.

Justice K. Murali Shankar dismissed Muruganantham’s anticipatory bail plea on October 16, holding that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that the origin of the objectionable electronic material and the persons responsible for creating and circulating it needed to be identified.

The case was registered at the All Women Police Station, Srirangam, Trichy City, under Sections 69, 77, 318 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act.

What are the allegations?

According to the prosecution, the complainant, a Bengaluru resident holding a state-level position in the Bharatiya Janata Party, became acquainted with Muruganantham through another accused in July 2024.

The complaint alleged that Muruganantham assured her that he would marry her, settled her and her two children in Srirangam, and began living with them.

He allegedly persuaded her to sell her house in Bengaluru, following which a sale deed was executed on January 14, 2025, in favour of a person named Hariharan.

The complainant alleged that the sale consideration, approximately ₹4 crore, was misappropriated by Muruganantham. She further alleged that he abused and harassed her and compelled her to have sexual relations with other politicians in New Delhi and Chennai.

According to the prosecution's case, after she complained to the BJP leadership in New Delhi, Muruganantham was removed from his party post following an inquiry.

The complaint further alleged that, in retaliation, he colluded with other accused to upload her nude photographs and videos on pornographic websites.

She also alleged that secret videos had been recorded without her knowledge and that AI-generated nude videos and morphed images depicting her alongside other political leaders were created and circulated online.

Ex-BJP Leader Denies Allegations

Muruganantham denied the allegations and contended that his relationship with the complainant was consensual and that he had never made a false promise of marriage.

His counsel submitted that bank statements showed transfers totalling approximately ₹59 lakh to the complainant and her relatives. According to him, these transactions demonstrated financial dealings between the parties and contradicted the allegation that he had dishonestly misappropriated the proceeds from the sale of the complainant’s property.

He also denied creating, uploading or circulating any nude photographs, videos or morphed images, arguing that no material connected him to their circulation.

The complainant opposed the bail plea, alleging that Muruganantham had exploited her physically and financially. The State also argued that electronic devices, digital records, financial transactions and the roles of those involved required further investigation.

What did the Court Say?

The High Court held that the accused’s claim of a consensual relationship and denial of a false promise of marriage could not, by themselves, answer the allegations at the anticipatory bail stage.

The Court observed: "Whether any promise of marriage was made, whether the said promise was false from its inception and whether the defacto complainant consented to the physical relationship on the basis of such promise, are matters required to be investigated in the light of the materials collected during investigation."

The Bench referred to Supreme Court decisions dealing with allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage. It noted the distinction between a promise made without any intention of fulfilling it from the outset and a genuine promise that could not subsequently be fulfilled.

The Court also noted that the complainant’s marriage was still subsisting, with divorce proceedings pending before a competent court in Bengaluru. However, it emphasised that the present proceedings concerned anticipatory bail and not a petition seeking quashing of the criminal case.

Nude Videos, Morphed Images Require Independent Investigation

The Court said the allegations concerning the creation and circulation of nude photographs, videos and morphed images required independent investigation. The investigating officer would have to trace the origin of the material, identify the electronic devices and accounts used, and establish who created, uploaded or forwarded it.

The Court stated: "The mere circulation of objectionable material by itself would not show the involvement of the petitioner, but his alleged participation has to be decided on the basis of the materials collected during the investigation."

Court says Arrest safeguards must be followed

The High Court acknowledged that Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regulates arrest in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years. It referred to the legal principle that notice is ordinarily the rule and arrest an exception in such cases.

However, the Court clarified that this principle does not confer an automatic right to anticipatory bail merely because of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences.

It added that the investigating agency must comply with statutory safeguards governing arrest and cannot arrest an accused merely because the allegations are serious or the investigation is pending.

Ultimately, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the need to trace the electronic material, the complainant’s apprehension of interference with the investigation and the crucial stage of the probe, the Court held that Muruganantham had not made out a case for anticipatory bail.

The Court dismissed the criminal original petition and directed the police to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and comply with its earlier directions concerning the removal of objectionable photographs and videos from the relevant websites and online platforms.

Case title - M. Muruganantham @ Karuppu v. The State of Tamilnadu