Edward Franklin v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 74, 75(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.167 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner allegedly subjected the de facto complainant to continuous sexual harassment by sending obscene and defamatory messages and engaging in inappropriate conversations. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that the alleged occurrence took place between 17.02.2026 and 22.04.2026. Thereafter, the FIR came to be registered on 03.06.2026, showing a significant delay in its registration. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that the petitioner has been tarnishing the image of the de facto complainant and her daughter. He further submitted that the petitioner went to the extent of writing the de facto complainant's phone number in a public toilet and posting objectionable content in a WhatsApp group, thereby sexually abusing the de facto complainant. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner regarding harassment and the transmission of objectionable material.

¶6Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that the petitioner is a Government employee, that the occurrence took place between 17.02.2026 and 22.04.2026, and that there was a delay in registering the FIR on 03.06.2026, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions:

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kurinjipadi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 5.30 p.m., until further orders;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

09.07.2026 cda To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kurinjipadi.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station, Cuddalore.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. cda

09.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Edward Franklin ... Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station, Cuddalore. (Crime No.167 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.167 of 2026 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.A.gopinath For Intervenor : Mr.G.D.Sendillveal For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)