Navaneethakrishnan v. The State Represented By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Navaneethakrishnan ..Petitioner Vs The State Represented by Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Coimbatore District.

Crime No.187 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.187 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent, on such terms and conditions.

For Petitioner:

Mr.C.Ramkumar For Respondent:

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner/A2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (under Section 384, 506(i) and 354C of Indian Penal Code, 1860) and 66E, 67A of IT Act, in Crime No.187 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, a married woman, was residing with her parents due to matrimonial disputes with her husband. During that period, A1 and petitioner/A2 came into contact with her through social media. It is alleged that petitioner/A2 developed intimacy with the defacto complainant, had a physical relationship with her and recorded the same on a mobile phone. Thereafter, by threatening to circulate the video, A2 obtained 21⁄2 sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant and also shared the video with her father when the jewels were demanded back. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A2 and he is the husband of A1. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He neither received any gold jewels from the defacto complainant nor involved in sharing any video. The petitioner has been in incarceration since 07.04.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and relate to exploitation of the defacto complainant by threatening to circulate private videos. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. This Court is of the view that though the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposed the bail application in view of the nature of allegations, taking into consideration the long incarceration of the petitioner since 07.04.2026 and upon the fact that by this time the major portion of the investigation might have been completed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. 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 each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam, and subject to the following conditions:

[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; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m., for a period of 15 days;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

05-06-2026 NSL 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 learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam.

2. The Central Prison, Coimbatore.

3. The Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Coimbatore District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 05-06-2026