S.Stephen v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.3976 of 2026 S.Stephen ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, W-8, Thirumangalam All Women Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.69 of 2025 on the file of W-8, Thirumangalam All Women Police Station, Chennai for the offence under Sections 318(4), 69 of BNS, 2023 Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Radha For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/7
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.01.2026, for the alleged offence punishable under 318(4), 69 of BNS, 2023 Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Cr.No.28 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and his associate under the guise of buying a second-hand four wheeler received Rs.80,000/- from the defacto complainant. Subsequently, by gaining the defacto complainant's confidence, had physical relationship with her. When the defacto complainant got engage with another person, the petitioner sent their private photographs to her bride groom and intentionally disturbed her marriage proposal, which led to the registration of the case and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking bail.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in relationship and owing to personal differences, due to which, this false and exaggerated complaint has been lodged. The petitioner is in custody from 05.01.2026 and he is ready 2/7
to cooperate with the investigation and also ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have also gone through the records and other connected materials which revealed that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were having relationship for some period, and .though it is stated that the petitioner has received some amount, and cheated her and investigation is pending, taking note of over all facts into consideration and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore,Chennai and on further conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and 3/7
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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses;
[e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;
[f] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions 4/7
have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 18.02.2026 Vv Note :
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To
1. The Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore,Chennai 5/7
2. The Inspector of Police, W-8, Thirumangalam All Women Police Station, Chennai.
3. The Central Prison, Puzhal-II 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
Vv 6/7
Crl.O.P.No.3976 of 2026 18.02.2026 7/7