A.Arunkumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25149 of 2025 and Crl.MP.No.17747 of 2025 A.Arunkumar ... Petitioner Vs.
State, represented by The Inspector of Police, CCD-1, Chennai South, Chennai.
... Respondent (Crime No.21 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police pending investigation in Crime No.21 of 2025 dated 23.07.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Justin Prabakaran For Intervenor : Mr.K.Uthayanithi For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/5
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 77, 79 of BNS, Section 4 of TNPHW, Sections 66, 66E IT Act in Crime No.21 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein taking advantage of the relationship between him and the defacto complainant, uploaded the mobile number of the victim in the social media. Later, the defacto complainant has received many inappropriate calls on her mobile, some of which contained abusive and offensive language. Upon inquiry, she came to know that an Instagram ID had been created using her photograph, with her phone number entered in the profile. Due to the said post, the complainant and her family members have received repeated inappropriate calls. She also came to know that the petitioner herein is the main person behind the entire episode. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is defacto complainant's lover and only on suspicion, he has been 2/5
impleaded in this case. He further submitted that he was not aware about the allegations against the petitioner herein. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor/Defacto complainant reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the accused has morphed the photographs of the petitioner and created fake accounts in social media and circulated the petitioner's mobile number in social media with an intention to defame the modesty of the petitioner. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the complaint reveals various details of petitioner's role, more particularly, the petitioner had created new Instagram ID using the defacto complainant's photos and linked with various phone numbers. The petitioner's role is identified with various instagram IDs and also various dating apps linked with the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
3/5
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, submissions made by learned counsel on either side, I an of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.09.2025 Vv To
1. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, CCD-1, Chennai South, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.
4/5
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.25149 of 2025 22.09.2025 5/5
6/5