DMK’s Gen Z wing leader Anbanantham withdraws anticipatory bail plea

Published 6 July 2026 · politics

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Gen Z wing leader A. Anbanantham, 34, on Monday (July 6, 2026) withdrew the anticipatory bail petition he had filed before

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Gen Z wing leader A. Anbanantham, 34, on Monday (July 6, 2026) withdrew the anticipatory bail petition he had filed before the Madras High Court in a case registered under the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act of 1986 for his ‘derogatory’ Instagram post that made references to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, his wife, son, and an actor. Justice C. Kumarappan dismissed the plea as withdrawn. The petitioner’s counsel chose to withdraw the plea after finding that the judge was not inclined to grant the relief. “This (the Instagram post) affects the conscience of society. He has taken everything as carte blanche. I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail,” the judge told the counsel before permitting him to withdraw the petition.

Though the counsel said that he would ask the petitioner to file an affidavit of apology, along with an undertaking that he would not make such remarks in the future, the judge said he was still not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail, as the Instagram post had already reached millions of people. “It affects society at large and society looks up to the court to curb such things,” the judge said. What is the case about? The Rayakottai police in Krishnagiri district had registerd the First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner on June 23 on the basis of a complaint lodged by M. Moorthy, an office-bearer of the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in Krishnagiri. According to the complainant, the petitioner had made highly disparaging remarks against the Chief Minister and had also dragged the latter’s family members and the actor in the “objectionable video” posted on his Instagram page.

He submitted a pen drive containing those videos and urged the police to initiate appropriate action under relevant criminal laws. Thereafter, the police had booked the petitioner under Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and Sections 79 (uttering words intended at insulting the modesty of a woman), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352 (intentionally insulting a person with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 353(1)(b) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner had initially approached the Krishnagiri Principal District and Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail in the case. The Sessions Court had dismissed his petition on June 29 after the prosecution vehemently opposed the grant of the relief on the ground that the petitioner was in the habit of “gaining cheap publicity” by circulating such videos with vulgar content though his social media accounts.