Infant Vasanth v. The State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Infant Vasanth S/o.Arulraj, No.31-B, Malligaipuram Thottam, Palakarai, Tiruchirapalli 620 001.

Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police W-15, All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai.

Crime No.5 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER: The criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail in Crime No.5 of 2025 in event of his arrest and pending investigation before Inspector of Police, W15 All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Muthupandi V For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2) of BNS and Sect.4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 in connection with the case in Crime No.5 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner threatened the de facto complainant to pay a sum of Rs.21,03,279/- immediately, failing which, he would upload her private photographs on the internet. The said photographs were allegedly taken when both were in a consensual relationship.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offences as alleged in the FIR, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further undertook that the petitioner would not abscond or evade the due process of law and is willing to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner had earlier preferred anticipatory bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.12207 of 2025 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and the same was dismissed on 18.12.2025. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner had earlier approached the de facto complainant through a matrimonial site and thereafter visited her house. It is alleged that the petitioner shared certain photographs on instagram and since the mother of the de facto complainant was not interest in the marriage, the relationship did not fructify. Subsequently, the de facto complainant married another person. Hence,

the petitioner threatened the de facto complainant that he would upload her photographs on the internet. He further submitted that in view of the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of anticipatory bail.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made on either side, the nature of the offences and the dispute between the parties, the fact that there is no previous case against the petitioner and the investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XV metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that:

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday for a period of four weeks.

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

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

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

30.12.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes srm/sms Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To

1. The Inspector of Police, W15 All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai

2. XV metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.DHANABAL J.

sms/srm 30-12-2025