Venkatmani v. The State Rep.By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.34402 of 2025 Venkatmani ... Petitioner -VsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Chinnasalem Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

(Crime No.523 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.523 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.N.Rajarajan

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.11.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 75(2), 308(4), 78(2) and 351(2) of BNS r/w Section 4 of THPHW Act, in Crime No. 523 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. 1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he developed a relationship between the victim aged 45years and gained access to her house. It is alleged that he somehow obtained the password of the CCTV cameras installed in her house and using the same, took several photographs of the victim as well as her family members. Subsequently, when the victim avoided him, the petitioner became enraged and threatened her with dire consequences, stating that he was in possession of the photographs of the victim and her family members and that he would upload the same in internet unless she complied with his demands. It is further alleged that he demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to avoid the same. Hence, a case was registered and the petitioner was arrested.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody since 26.11.2025 and the mobile phones were also recovered and that it is a consensual relationship. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the intervener submitted that the petitioner not only collected the money from the petitioner but also continuous to retain several photographs, including intimate photographs and videos. Hence, he opposes to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he has also 2/4

involved in another case in Crime No.326 of 2025 and in the same police station. He further submitted that the petitioner involved in the molestation of the victim/woman. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Though it is stated that the petitioner was arrested recently and that the mobiles have been recovered, the investigation is not yet concluded. This Court is of the view that, at this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a likelihood of his indulging in similar activities. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7 .Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 16.12.2025 drl To

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

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

drl Crl.O.P.No.34402 of 2025 16.12.2025 4/4