Revathy v. The State Rep.By, Sub-Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Revathy D/o.Ranganathan, No.468/55, Avanam Road, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District-614 804.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The state rep.by, Sub-Inspector of Police, W35, All Women Police station, Koyambedu. Cr.No.21/2025.
Respondent(s) PRAYER To grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of her arrest in Cr.No.21/2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Intervener: Mr.J.Milton Arul Rajendran For Petitioner(s):
M/s.P.Prakash Paul For Respondent(s):
M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 85 of BNS and 67A of the IT Act in Crime No. 21 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the concubine of A1 in this case. Since the de facto complainant is the wife, she objected to his relationship, in order to humiliate and harass her, both the accused sent disturbing images including some incriminating material, which resulted in causing harassment to the victim in this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not sent messages as alleged by the prosecution; the messages are only sent by A1, and he has been arrested and is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the intervener submitted that photograph of A1 and A2 in the compromised position sent to the phone number of the victim, and also, further sent modified photos of the defacto complainant and her child, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is likelihood that she will indulge in similar offences. Hence, opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that A1 in this case has been arrested and the investigation is pending and the phone belonging
to A1 has already been seized. Hence, opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. I have gone through the FIR and other connected materials, considering the fact that the petitioner is being a lady and it is alleged she has sent some photos and humiliated and harassed the defacto complainant, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:
(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
(b) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;
(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
(e) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
30-01-2026 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Egmore.
2.The state rep.by, Sub-Inspector of Police, W35, All Women Police station, Koyambedu. Cr.No.21/2025.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
mpa CRL OP No. 2170 of 30-01-2026