Karur Stampede: Madras High Court reserves order on anticipatory bail for TVK leaders

Vijay

The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Friday reserved its order on the anticipatory bail pleas filed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) functionaries N Anand, also known as Bussy Anand, and CTR Nirmal Kumar, in connection with the Karur rally stampede that killed 41 people and injured over 60 last week.

Justice M Jothiraman reserved the verdict after hearing extensive arguments from both the petitioners’ and the State’s counsels.

The duo has been booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 110 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 125(b) (act endangering life), and 223 (disobedience of public servant’s order).

They also face charges under the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

Counsel for the TVK leaders argued that the stampede was a tragic accident and not a case of culpable homicide. He maintained that his clients had no intention of harming their own party cadres. “

If an accident occurs at a public meeting, can the secretary of a political party be charged? Would anyone allege that a Chief Minister is criminally liable if a mishap happens at his rally?” he asked.

The defence further contended that the State failed to provide adequate police protection despite prior intimation about the large crowd.

He alleged that the lathi charge by police, without prior warnings or alternative crowd-control measures, triggered panic that led to the deadly stampede. “The mess was because of police mishandling, not because of my clients,” counsel said.

However, the State, opposing the bail plea, argued that both petitioners played an organizing role in the rally and failed to take measures to ensure public safety. The government counsel said no attempt was made by them to calm the crowd during the stampede. He stressed that the investigation was still at an early stage and evidence was being collected to determine their exact roles.

The State also pointed out that the petitioners had not disclosed their status as current or former MLAs, which, if revealed, would have referred the case to a special bench.