Rajesh v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 351(2) of Page2 of 6 B.N.S. read with Section 67A of IT Act in connection with the case in Crime No.398 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, subsequent to the cancellation of the marriage proposal between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the petitioner began threatening the defacto complainant by sending abusive messages and obscene photographs. It is further alleged that the petitioner warned the defacto complainant not to marry anyone else. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further contend that the petitioner has no previous case. As the custodial interrogation is not required in this case, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, would submit that the offence are grievous in nature, the petitioner has no previous case, hence, strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 6

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

¶6Considering the nature of allegations and taking note of the facts that there exists a dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant subsequent to the cancellation of the marriage proposal between them, the petitioner has no previous case, and since the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham 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: Page4 of 6 [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. [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S. 14-05-2026 nl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Page5 of 6 To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham

2.The Inspector of Police, Pernambut Police Station. Pernambut, Vellore District

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. CRLoOPoNo.o12971oofo2026 P.DHANABAL,oJ. nl CRLoOPoNo.o12971oofo2026 14-05-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-05-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rajesh S/o. Dhanacheliyan, No. 17, Chennappa Nagar, Chinnavarikam, Tuttipattu, Ambur, Tirupathur District. ..Petitioner Vs State rep by the Inspector of Police, Pernambut Police Station. Pernambut, Vellore District (Crime No. 398 of 2025) ..Respondent To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in crime No.398 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of police, Pernambut Police Station, Pernambut, Vellore District. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vinodhkumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)