Amaravathy v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Amaravathy ... Petitioner Vs.

State Represented by AWPS Virugambakkam Police Station, Maduravoyal, Chennai - 600 095.

(Crime.No.21 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.21 of 2025 dated 23.06.2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan For Respondent :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/7

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.21 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner/A2 and A1 are mother and son. A1, while studying in Law College, had love affair with the defacto complainant. On the assurance of marrying, the defacto complainant had physical relationship with A1. Thereafter, defacto complainant received message, photographs and videos of the A1 having physical relationship with other girls. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, the petitioner/A2 verbally abused the defacto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant disclosed during a conversation that she is pregnant, but that is not due to A1 and the reason is some other person. He further submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case and she is ready to abide by any stringent conditions, that may be 2/7

imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor strongly opposed by stating that the defacto complainant has got photographs and material to show that petitioner had circulated the private moment photographs in the social media and likewise, the victim girl has got photographs which are sent by other victim girls. She is ready to produce the electronic evidence and pen drive which has the telephone conversation and she is also ready for voice test.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal.Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is 3/7

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [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 as and when required for further interrogation; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper 4/7

with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the respondent as and when required; [f] 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; [g] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate 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]; [i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

25.07.2025 dna To 1.The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, 5/7

Saidapet, Chennai-15.

2.The Station House Officer AWPS Virugambakkam Police Station, Maduravoyal, Chennai - 600 095.

(Crime.No.21 of 2025) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6/7

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

dna (2/2) 25.07.2025 7/7