B.Navaneetha Krishnan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/02/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL B.Navaneetha Krishnan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Its, the Inspector of Police, Dindigul AWPS Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.25 of 2024).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Srinivasan, Advocate For Mr.Prabhu Raj A, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- for Bail in Crime No.25 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22.01.2025 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) praying to grant 1/5

bail.

2. The petitioner/ accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.12.2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 69 and 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), in Crime No.25 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the petitioner loved each other from the year 2022. The petitioner has promised the defacto complainant to marry her and both had physical relationship and also taken photos. Later, the petitioner refused to marry her and also threatened her that he will publish their private photos in the internet. Hence the case.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner has got married recently and is in judicial custody since 28.12.2024. He therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that cell phone and other electronic gadgets have been seized from the petitioner and same were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. He further submitted that the petitioner has threatened the defacto complainant using their private photos. He also submitted that the petitioner had relationship with 2/5

four women and now he married another woman. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

6. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records. 7.The petitioner was arrested on 28.12.2024 and he is in incarceration since 28.12.2024. Considering the nature of offence and the facts and circumstances of the case and the alleged offence committed by the petitioner and also taking into consideration that on perusing the First Information Report (FIR), it is found that the petitioner has a permanent residence and deep roots in the society. Hence, there is less possibility of absconding. Hence, with a view to give one more opportunity to reform himself, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul District. Among two sureties one shall be a blood surety. (ii) 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 Judicial Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of 3/5

identity proofs to ensure their identity;

(iii) The petitioner shall furnish his residence address and mobile number: (iv) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent police, daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders;

(v)The petitioner shall not enter into the residence of the defacto complainant or her work place.

(vi) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence; (vii) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to the conditions stated supra.

sd/- 03/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / 03/02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

4/5

LR To 1.The Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul AWPS Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Dindigul.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.A.PRABHU RAJ, Advocate ( SR-1318[I] dated 03/02/2025 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1398 of 2025 Date :03/02/2025 ED/ /SAR- (03/02/2025) 5P / 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5