Varadhan v. The State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Varadhan ..Petitioner Vs The State rep. by Inspector of Police Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

Crime No.774 of 2025.

..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.774 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi District pending investigation, on such terms and conditions as this Court.

For Petitioner:

Mr.S. Nirmal Aditya For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.774 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was acquainted with the wife of the defacto complainant and after she stopped communicating with him, the petitioner allegedly continued to send messages and objectionable photographs and videos and threatened to circulate the same on social media. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the wife of the defacto complainant were in a relationship and the present complaint has been lodged out of vengeance. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to hand over his mobile phone along with all data available therein to the respondent police. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is prepared to fully cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the allegations relate to circulation of objectionable photographs and messages. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. From the submission of the learned Counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that no physical injury has been caused in the occurrence. Further, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to hand over his mobile phone and cooperate with the investigation. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, subject to 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 is made ready, before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned 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 two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) the petitioner is directed to surrender his mobile phone to the police.

(e) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory 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];

(f) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

15-06-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 15-06-2026