Subha Jini v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Marthandam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Subha Jini, W/o.Sudhan, Paruthivilai Veedu, Kaisoondi, Puthukadai Post- 629 171, Kanyakumari District..
... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
Cr.No.152/2026..
2. Nishanthini, W/o.Mukesh, Vatalikoottam, Viricode Post, Kanyakumari..
... Respondents/Complainants For Petitioner : Mr.D.V.Raju, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) 1/9
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-33AB. For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.
152/2026 on the file of the respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 76, 351(2) and 318 of BNS and Sections 66 and 67 of Information Technology Act r/w Section 4(1)(A) of TNPL Act, in Crime No.152 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the on the guise of the friend of the defacto complainant's husband, the accused persons often came to their house and developed affair with the defacto complainant. At one point of time, they 2/9
demanded money from the defacto complainant for starting a business. When she refused to give money, they threatened her as if they will upload the nude photographs of the defacto complainant in the social media. Thereafter they obtained 5 sovereigns of gold chain from her. But, did not return the same. When she demanded the gold chain, they again threatened the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has no knowledge about the above said occurrence. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. 3/9
4. The learned Counsel for the State of TN (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The accused persons developed illicit intimacy with the defacto complainant and threatened her demanding money, as if they will upload the nude photographs of the defacto complainant. The petitioner has no previous cases. Investigation is still pending. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, according to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence took place on 17.02.2025 and the FIR has been registered on 23.03.2026, belatedly, even according to the FIR, 4/9
the main allegation are as against A2, who was subsequently arrested in this case and petitioner has no previous cases and no one sustained any injury in this case and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, 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 5/9
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a week ie., on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[f] On breach of any of the 6/9
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 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 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 12.06.2026 VSG 7/9
TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
P. DHANABAL,J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10903 of 2026 Date : 12/06/2026 9/9