K.Nataraj v. The State Through The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR K.Nataraj ... Petitioner/sole accused Vs.

The State through The Inspector of Police, Kuniyamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore.

(Crime No.84 of 2025).

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.84 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Bharathy For Respondent :

Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.03.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 318(2) and 351(3) of BNS Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman 1/6

Act, in connection with Crime No.84 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant were working in the same company. The petitioner on the false promise of marriage, insisted the de-facto complainant to show her private parts through video call and shared the said video to others. Hence, the case.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant were working in the same company. The de-fact complainant being a divorcee was interested on the petitioner and they were moving closely. Thereafter the de-facto complainant insisted the petitioner to marry her, which the petitioner refused, for which, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant were working in the same company. The private movements of the de-facto 2/6

complainant has been captured in the petitioner's mobile phone and the petitioner compelled the de-facto complainant to have a physical relationship. Since the defacto complainant refused the same, the petitioner shared those videos to others. Now, petitioner's mobile phone has been seized.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, and on further conditions that:

[a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; 3/6

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [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 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. 12.06.2025 rsi 4/6

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 Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kuniyamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi 12.06.2025 6/6