S.Ganesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL S.Ganesh ...Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No.7 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant (Respondent is amended as per the order of this Court dated 09.04.2026 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6972 of 2026) For Petitioner:Mr.S.Veerapandi Selvaraj For Respondent:Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 7 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- When the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the petitioner, the respondent police station has been wrongly mentioned as "District Crime Branch" instead of "Cyber Crime Wing". Therefore, the said typographical error has to be corrected. 2.Hence, Registry is directed to carry out the above said correction in the main petition. 3.The petitioner/Sole accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) 76, 351(2) of BNS, 2023, r/w Section 66(E) and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.7 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2/8

4.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner obtained the defacto complainant's personal photographs and private data including highly sensitive and intimate images and thereafter, misused the same by morphing them into obscene content and using them as a tool to threatened and controlled her and the accused demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-from her. When she refused to pay the same, he threatened her to circulate her private photos and obscene imaged through social media. Hence, the complaint.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.03.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 3/8

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the investigation has been completed. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous cases. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the fact that there is a dispute between the parties and no previous cases are pending against the petitioner and the investigation has been completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

4/8

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation before the respondent Police.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected;

5/8

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

[e] 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 6/8

P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 09.04.2026 vsg To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Pudukkottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Pudukkottai District..

3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Pudukkottai..

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

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6972 of 2026 Date : 09.04.2026 8/8