Rajkumar v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD). No.8847 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17/05/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRL OP(MD). No.8847 of 2023 Rajkumar ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Kanyakumari (Crime No.6 of 2023).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Jenifar Bibin.R, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivakumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.6 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.03.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A)(1)(i), 354(A)(1)(ii), 354(A)(1)(iv) and 506(1) of IPC, Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of Information Technology Act and Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No.6 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are working in the same place. The petitioner had physical relationship with the de-facto complainant and recorded the same in his mobile phone. When the de-facto complainant refused to act upon the words of the petitioner, the petitioner threatened her saying that he will circulate the photos in social media. Hence, the case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.8847 of 2023 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had affair with the de-facto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent raised objection stating that the petitioner is having nine E-mail IDs and he has stored all the videographs in his E-mail ID, which were taken by him, while he was with her and also threatened the de-facto complainant by demanding money stating that if she fails to pay the money, he will publish the videos in the social media. If the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper the evidence.

5.Considering the submission of the prosecution revealed that the petitioner is an employee of the Court and had affair with the de-facto complainant, who is also the staff of the Court and took obscene videos of the de-facto complainant and also stored the same in his E-mail ID.

6.On considering the gravity and nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 17/05/2023 / TRUE COPY / /05/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

SJI TO

1. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nagercoil.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Kanyakumari.

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

+1 CC to M/s.R.JENIFAR BIBIN, Advocate (SR-7423[I] dated 17/05/2023)

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8847 of 2023 Date : 17/05/2023 SA/VR/SAR-2/18.05.2023/2P/5C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2