TN Court Issues Non-Bailable Warrant Against DMK's Ponmudy
7 Aug 2026 3:15 PM IST7 Aug 2026 3:15 PM IST
Warrant issued against former minister K Ponmudy over alleged derogatory remarks against Saivaites, Vaishnavites and women.
A Chennai court issued a non-bailable warrant against senior DMK leader K Ponmudy after rejecting a plea seeking to excuse his continued absence from proceedings in a hate speech case.
A metropolitan magistrate court on Thursday issued a non-bailable warrant against senior DMK leader, former minister K Ponmudy for his alleged derogatory remarks against Saivaites, Vaishnavites and women.After Ponmudy made the alleged remarks last year at an event, BJP Chennai corporation councillor Uma Anandan lodged a private complaint and the III metropolitan magistrate's court at George Town here had taken cognisance of it.
Last month, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan had dismissed a petition filed by Ponmudy seeking to set aside the BJP leader's complaint.
Against this background, when the matter came up in George Town court, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the High Court had directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months.
The counsel for the accused filed a petition under Section 355 of BNSS (allowing a judge/magistrate to hold an inquiry or trial in the absence of the accused) to condone the absence of the accused.
The petition was strongly objected by the counsel for the complainant in view of continuous non-appearance of the accused.
Citing several factors, the court dismissed the petition filed by the counsel for the accused.
On the reasons for it, the court said the absence of the accused would hinder proceedings.
The petition (under Section 355 of BNSS filed by the counsel for the accused) was not supported by any medical records. The HC had given direction to the lower court to expeditiously complete the trial and objection has also been raised by the complainant. In view of such factors, the petition was dismissed, the magistrate court held and posted the matter to be heard on September 2, 2026.
Against this background, when the matter came up in George Town court, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the High Court had directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months.
The counsel for the accused filed a petition under Section 355 of BNSS (allowing a judge/magistrate to hold an inquiry or trial in the absence of the accused) to condone the absence of the accused.
The petition was strongly objected by the counsel for the complainant in view of continuous non-appearance of the accused.
Citing several factors, the court dismissed the petition filed by the counsel for the accused.
On the reasons for it, the court said the absence of the accused would hinder proceedings.
The petition (under Section 355 of BNSS filed by the counsel for the accused) was not supported by any medical records. The HC had given direction to the lower court to expeditiously complete the trial and objection has also been raised by the complainant. In view of such factors, the petition was dismissed, the magistrate court held and posted the matter to be heard on September 2, 2026.
( Source : PTI )
Next Story