Nalini v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.11043 of 2025 Nalini W/o. Senthilkumar ... Petitioner/Accused-1 Vs.
The State represented byThe Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, Tirupattur District.
(Crime No.43 of 2025).
... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.43 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.E. Kannadasan For Respondent : Ms. J.R. Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.03.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.43 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 308(2), 318(4), 351(2), 1/5
351(4) of B.N.S. read with Section 67-A of Information Technology Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the A1 was appointed as a service maid by the defacto complainant to take care of his aged mother; that A1 colluded with other accused, had taken the obscene videos of the defacto complainant; that thereafter threatened the defacto complainant that they will post the obscene videos on social media; and that thereby demanded and extorted money to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/- from the defacto complainant. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false; that the co-accused was already released on bail; that in any case, considering the period of incarceration, further custody of the petitioner is not required and prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail;
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the petitioner has no bad antecedents and the co-accused was granted bail. 2/5
5. Considering, that nature of allegation against the petitioner, the period of incarceration, the fact that the co-accused was granted bail, the petitioner has no bad antecedents and since further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupattur.
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate 3/5
action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions 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)AIR SCW 5560];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
15.04.2025 mjs To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupattur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Town Police Station, Tirupattur District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,Special Prison for Women, Vellore.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5
SUNDER MOHAN., J.
mjs 15.04.2025 5/5