Ranganath Sharavan Kumar @ Sharavan Kumar v. State Rep By

P.DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 417 of IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.05 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de facto complainant had consensual relationship and it is alleged that the petitioner is threatening the de facto complainant with photographs and videographs.. Hence, the complaint.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged and the petitioner had been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish substantial sureties for his due release and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner . 1/4

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant had love affair and the petitioner threated the de facto complainant with photographs and videographs and further, the mobile phone of the petitioner was also recovered. He submitted that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and also considering the gravity of offences, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner . 5.

Considering the representations made by both sides and as there was a love affair between the parties and also considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and there is no incriminating materials available from the seized cell phone and further, taking into consideration of the fact that the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen

(15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the 2/4

Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 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 and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily, until further orders.

[b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade then from disclosing such facts of the Court or to any police officer.

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

P.DHANABAL, J.

vca 3/4

[e] the petitioner shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. [f] 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].

[g] If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

18.09.2024 vca 4/4